Bob

Dorval, Canada

#21 Apr 6, 2013
I do know how I feel about it, moron. I was more concerned with pointing out to an idiot who posts as LargeLanguage isn't very good at using his own language.
LargeLout would be a more appropriate handle.
Just like Moron would be a better handle for you, moron.
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#22 Apr 7, 2013
Bob wrote:
I do know how I feel about it, moron. I was more concerned with pointing out to an idiot who posts as LargeLanguage isn't very good at using his own language.
LargeLout would be a more appropriate handle.
Just like Moron would be a better handle for you, moron.
But you still don't reveal your disposition toward allowing a father to administer a bath to his teenaged daughter. I suppose it's a private matter, between you and your god.
D-J-W

Christchurch, UK

#23 Apr 7, 2013
The only circumstances when it would be permissible for a relative to bathe a near adult relative is if they became ill or disabled and needed remedial/palliative care.

Ie paralysed from the neck down, vegetative state, mentally incapacitated etc. Then helping that person to bath or go to the toilet with the help of carers maybe permissible.

However, this should forum should not be a spur for Largelanguages twisted fantasies on incest. Privacy should always be paramount especially when the teenage son or daughter can bathe themselves. Therefore there should be no "open bathroom" policies within the family home!
MaltaMon

York, PA

#24 Apr 7, 2013
Lol.. All I did was tell Bob that he had failed to reveal his stand on fathers bathing their daughters--which is absolutely true--and the faerie brigade has pummelled me with the cartoon symbols I covet: the peanuts, the dull light bulbs and the rest. I regret that you are unable to post all of the negative symbols that you would wish to. I would love it if you weren't restricted to three. Again, I thank you for the only reactions--scorn, contempt, envy, and anything worse--that I would be able to tolerate from you If you complimented me, I'd be horrified. And insulted. Coming from you, a compliment can only hurt. Lol. Thanks, "fellaz".

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#25 Apr 7, 2013
D-J-W wrote:
The only circumstances when it would be permissible for a relative to bathe a near adult relative is if they became ill or disabled and needed remedial/palliative care.
Ie paralysed from the neck down, vegetative state, mentally incapacitated etc. Then helping that person to bath or go to the toilet with the help of carers maybe permissible.
However, this should forum should not be a spur for Largelanguages twisted fantasies on incest. Privacy should always be paramount especially when the teenage son or daughter can bathe themselves. Therefore there should be no "open bathroom" policies within the family home!
Obviously Maltamon shares his incest fantasies because he didn't criticize him on it, on the contrary he is defending him.
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#26 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously Maltamon shares his incest fantasies because he didn't criticize him on it, on the contrary he is defending him.
You lying little swinging parasitic faerie. You know from your incarnation as FortySomething, or from your research, that I regard any parent's or any adult's bathing of an able-bodied teenager of either sex--his or her own child, or anyone else's--as sexual abuse. Just another bald-faced lie from a born liar. But if you are incapable of telling the truth, which is obvious, none of my recorded condemnations of so perverted and incestuous an activity will matter.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#27 Apr 8, 2013
Oh please, Molly, so I'm a liar? Where did I post as Fortysomething? This is another of your usual invented lies, to which we are all used to by now.
And where did you condemn Large for his fantasies about the abuse of young girls, or here about his fantasy of fathers bathing teenage daughters, you lying hypocrite?
Trying to deflect the accusation on Bob is ridiculous and laughable. Where did Bob ever mention such a subject?
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#28 Apr 8, 2013
It is very interesting that you respond to just one part of what I had said about your lying and that you ignore all the rest.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#29 Apr 8, 2013
And the notion that you are a pathological liar is nothing at all new to any of us, and is certainly not new to you. "So now I'm a liar?" you ask as if it surprises you. Not now. Always. You were born a liar.. Lol.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31 Apr 8, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
And the notion that you are a pathological liar is nothing at all new to any of us, and is certainly not new to you. "So now I'm a liar?" you ask as if it surprises you. Not now. Always. You were born a liar.. Lol.
And yet you still haven't proved where I'm a liar. Most of your posts are PROOF that you are a pathological liar. I don't think anyone has any doubt about that.
Largelanguage

Flint, UK

#32 Apr 9, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> "Reserve judgment"? Why would you do that? Don't you know how you feel about it?
Usually when someone picks on grammar instead of outright confront them is usually a sign that you are probably speaking to an insecure child, but Bob isn't a child is he? He is just an emotionally arrested coward, who dare not confront someone outright.
MaltaMon

Cherry Hill, NJ

#33 Apr 9, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you still haven't proved where I'm a liar. Most of your posts are PROOF that you are a pathological liar. I don't think anyone has any doubt about that.
No anyone? You presume to speak for whom? I have proven over and over again by posting your own words and a link to your own statements. And by referring to your pornographic pictures of young boys. All of which you have denied posting. So who is the liar here? Lol. You
are worse than a child with his hand caught in the cookie jar. Now, I know that that comparison will have turned you on sexually, but you nonetheless are no better than a guilty child who must like his way out of trouble. Except that you aren't a child, and your lies are not working.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#34 Apr 9, 2013
And where are these pornographic pictures of young boys which you say I have posted? You have said this a hundred times and I have always proved you a liar. Not that it is necessary, because we all know that you are a pathological liar.
MaltaMon

Cherry Hill, NJ

#35 Apr 9, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
And where are these pornographic pictures of young boys which you say I have posted? You have said this a hundred times and I have alwaiys proved you a liar. Not that it is necessary, because we all know that you are a pathological liar.
Again you deny posting a link to photos of naked middle-school-aged boys in a gang shower, naked boys on diving boards and gathered at swimming pools, naked young boys gathered on the beach. I have been around this traffic circle with you before. When you run out of challenges, you go back to the top of your well thumbed list and pretend that you've never,asked it before and that I have never answered it. You really count on nobody paying attention.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#36 Apr 9, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Again you deny posting a link to photos of naked middle-school-aged boys in a gang shower, naked boys on diving boards and gathered at swimming pools, naked young boys gathered on the beach. I have been around this traffic circle with you before. When you run out of challenges, you go back to the top of your well thumbed list and pretend that you've never,asked it before and that I have never answered it. You really count on nobody paying attention.
Excuse me, liar, I never posted a link to photos of naked boys as you claim, I posted a link to a Google site about the documented history of nude swimming. I also posted a link to YOUR posts where you say that it should be legal for people to take nude photos of children, do you deny this?
MaltaMon

Cherry Hill, NJ

#37 Apr 9, 2013
It isn't "a Google site" If you "Google" Google itself, what you will ger are "Google sites". What you posted was a link to a child-pornography site (disguised as a site devoted to the history of childhood swimming, in what has become a common effort to elude the new, much stricter anti-child-pornography statutes) which you found by using Google as a search engine. If it were unavailable via mainstream search engines such as Google and Yahoo, who would see it? Paedophiles like you would be in a tizzy if you couldn't get your kiddie-porn fix.
MaltaMon

Cherry Hill, NJ

#38 Apr 9, 2013
You speak of it, with characteristic disingenuous obfuscation, as if Google itself created and posted your child-porn site.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#39 Apr 9, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
You speak of it, with characteristic disingenuous obfuscation, as if Google itself created and posted your child-porn site.
Only an idiot like you would say that a google site is a child porn site. But then I suppose PhD Molly knows better than Google's lawyers. Your hypocricy is really crass, first you suggest that people should be allowed to take photos of naked children and then you see a photo from Time/Life magazine on a google site as child porn. And you wonder why I call you a double-face?
Largelanguage

Flint, UK

#40 Apr 10, 2013
It is well known that thei nternet has no censorship. And Time/Life Magazine never had an image of a naked boy in it, those are only lies.

If nudity was allowed, or forbidden as policy in schools, it would have been all over the papers, and there is no congregational history of it ever being allowed.
MaltaMon

Manchester, PA

#41 Apr 10, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Only an idiot like you would say that a google site is a child porn site. But then I suppose PhD Molly knows better than Google's lawyers. Your hypocricy is really crass, first you suggest that people should be allowed to take photos of naked children and then you see a photo from Time/Life magazine on a google site as child porn. And you wonder why I call you a double-face?
Only an OUTED paedophile who feels cornered by the knowledge that his own posting of child pornography on a mainstream chat site and may be facing a ban or worse would continue to characterize that child-porn site which he posted as something that Google, the search engine, had created, had uploaded, and currently maintains. It is NOT a "Google Site", you sniveling fa***t boy-loving pervert. And "crass"? Don't make me laugh, you little Pu**y. Nothing is more crass than your sexual attraction to underaged boys and your unrelentingly wanton desire to see young boys completely nude. "Hypocrisy"? Anything and everything you say here in irrational defense of your sexual attraction to children is hypocritical. Nobody else's approaches it, save perhaps for that of D-J-W, your fellow child-porn distributor on Topix.

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
U.S., Cuba spar over immigration policy Sat Phil 32
Pedo Phil Beats a Hasty Retreat! (Feb '14) Sat Phil 41
Christmas Re-Branded Fri Bob 26
Bethesda teen who contracted flesh-eating disea... (Oct '12) Fri Bob 103
Hurricane Sandys Halloween Horror. (Nov '12) Fri Bob 166
after school programs (Jul '12) Fri Bob 40
Did You Swim Nude In High School? (Dec '12) Jan 23 Bob 1,295
More from around the web