Did You Swim Nude In High School?
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#592 Feb 26, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Hehe... he is only interested in boys and men. He dislikes women, as he has shown to Miss Katie. Just trying to put on a poor show to make us think that he is normal.
Katie isn't a women. She certainly is not lady.
Rush

Fairbury, NE

#593 Feb 26, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Hehe... he is only interested in boys and men. He dislikes women, as he has shown to Miss Katie. Just trying to put on a poor show to make us think that he is normal.
That ship sailed a long time ago! LOL
Rush

Fairbury, NE

#594 Feb 26, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
What's that little boy? Girls could mean 20's.
You are back peddaling kiddo.
Rush

Fairbury, NE

#595 Feb 26, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Katie isn't a women. She certainly is not lady.
And you are not even CLOSE to being a man.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#596 Feb 26, 2013
curiousbi wrote:
Not much to tell. We were hot whilst out walking and found a lake, as we had not expected to swim we did not have any swimming things. It was isolated and as none of us wanted to wear wet bra and panties for the rest of the day we all stripped off and had a swim
and curiousbi- if a male happened along while you were swimming would you have felt guilty or that you and your mates had done a terrible wrong ??
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#597 Feb 26, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell that to your modesty crusade master Cadad, he has plenty of towels for that purpose. That is not my job.
No, your job, quite obviously, to share your stash of child pornography with your brothers on this site. Your job, clearly, is NOT to protect children, but rather to promote their exploitation and abuse for your own depraved, evil purposes. A well-adjusted adult would find those photos, which you post and continue to defend as wholesome and not-at-all out of the ordinary on the treatment of innocent children, at once appalling, repugnant, repulsive, and heart-rending. You look at them and see cute young naked boys. You don't sense the abusive attitudes, practices and standards that lay behind the subjection of those kids to such exposure for the gratification of very sick men like you. You perverted freak. At least DJW, who, like you, posted child pornography under the tissue-thin guise of seeking, in earnest, to edify his readers, claimed at the same time to be horrified by the photos and by the sick, perverted people who forced those kids to be captured on film while entirely nude. You don't make the slightest effort in that regard. Your attitude is that naked boys are adorable and thud it is normal for a grown man to want to photograph them nude, to collect photographs of naked boys, and to share naked photos of underaged boys with your like-minded predatory brothers. At least DJW was conflicted about it, but where is he now? Do you REALLY want to continue down this road with me?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#598 Feb 26, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> No, your job, quite obviously, to share your stash of child pornography with your brothers on this site. Your job, clearly, is NOT to protect children, but rather to promote their exploitation and abuse for your own depraved, evil purposes. A well-adjusted adult would find those photos, which you post and continue to defend as wholesome and not-at-all out of the ordinary on the treatment of innocent children, at once appalling, repugnant, repulsive, and heart-rending. You look at them and see cute young naked boys. You don't sense the abusive attitudes, practices and standards that lay behind the subjection of those kids to such exposure for the gratification of very sick men like you. You perverted freak. At least DJW, who, like you, posted child pornography under the tissue-thin guise of seeking, in earnest, to edify his readers, claimed at the same time to be horrified by the photos and by the sick, perverted people who forced those kids to be captured on film while entirely nude. You don't make the slightest effort in that regard. Your attitude is that naked boys are adorable and thud it is normal for a grown man to want to photograph them nude, to collect photographs of naked boys, and to share naked photos of underaged boys with your like-minded predatory brothers. At least DJW was conflicted about it, but where is he now? Do you REALLY want to continue down this road with me?
I suggest you go see a psychiatrist to get your head examined.
Bob

Ch√Ęteauguay, Canada

#599 Feb 26, 2013
curiousbi wrote:
Not much to tell. We were hot whilst out walking and found a lake, as we had not expected to swim we did not have any swimming things. It was isolated and as none of us wanted to wear wet bra and panties for the rest of the day we all stripped off and had a swim
I'm hot whilst reading your post, so I just stripped off my PTHRMS T-shirt!
Bob

Ch√Ęteauguay, Canada

#600 Feb 26, 2013
coyote wrote:
<quoted text> and curiousbi- if a male happened along while you were swimming would you have felt guilty or that you and your mates had done a terrible wrong ??
But the real 64000$ question is, what if coyote and myself happened along while you were swimming would you have allowed us to join you??
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#601 Feb 26, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you go see a psychiatrist to get your head examined.
Right, right. You have no defense, so you take that intelligent, manly tack. I take that as indication that you do not wish to continue down that road. Unlike your posting and defense of child pornography, that is, at long last,,a wise choice.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#602 Feb 26, 2013
oh no ! has curiousbi led us this far and then ditched us ? If only new interesting posters could overlook the troll posts it may be possible to have some amusing exchanges again---oh well...
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#603 Feb 26, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
But the real 64000$ question is, what if coyote and myself happened along while you were swimming would you have allowed us to join you??
maybe you Bob- I wud'a taken off like a scared coyote - apologies for leaving you alone in such an embarrassing situation- hope curiousbi is still around to comment. I think Katie would have yelled wa4kers and fixed us with an arrow whereas Broken Arrow may have said "enter at your own peril canucks!" don' really know but maybe we will happen upon it some day while absorbing some "moose"-- I actually have and the outcome is/was quite opposite to that expected... just between us canucks with cndn gals..U Know !

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#604 Feb 26, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Right, right. You have no defense, so you take that intelligent, manly tack. I take that as indication that you do not wish to continue down that road. Unlike your posting and defense of child pornography, that is, at long last,,a wise choice.
We are ignoring maniacal trolls. I have already explained to you in detail about this subject to show how wrong and malicious you are. I don't have to repeat myself. You repeat this same thing to everyone who posts on this forum. Like I said, get some help.
Btw, your old friend Bob is back, whom you claim has raped your son. So that should keep you busy with your maniacal rants. It is you who has no defense in your support of your friend LL's wanting Miss Katie to get raped. It is no use trying to deflect with your lies on others to cover your shame. Wanting women to get raped is a serious crime and a sign of your sick and deranged mind.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#605 Feb 26, 2013
coyote wrote:
oh no ! has curiousbi led us this far and then ditched us ? If only new interesting posters could overlook the troll posts it may be possible to have some amusing exchanges again---oh well...
I think she was scared off by the manic trolls. At least they didn't tell her that she should get raped, as they did to Karie. But she probably sensed that they would if she stuck long enough.
Anyway it would have made a change talking about nude swimming girls, ahem... women, instead of the constant bombardment about naked boys by the sick troll duo.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#606 Feb 26, 2013
I agree- I do hope she checks back on the forum and realizes many of us are interested in her nude swimming venture plus her response to the "what ifs"- just for some humour.....need KM's blessings !
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#607 Feb 26, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
We are ignoring maniacal trolls. I have already explained to you in detail about this subject to show how wrong and malicious you are. I don't have to repeat myself. You repeat this same thing to everyone who posts on this forum. Like I said, get some help.
Btw, your old friend Bob is back, whom you claim has raped your son. So that should keep you busy with your maniacal rants. It is you who has no defense in yOuyour support of your friend LL's wanting Miss Katie to get raped. It is no use trying to deflect with your lies on others to cover your shame. Wanting women to get raped is a serious crime and a sign of your sick and deranged mind.
You have "explained", you say, but what you offer is a rationalization. You see nothing wrong with that site or its lurid photographic content. You should know better, but you, like DJW and Bob, can only deny what you have done or otherwise justify jt. I am relieved that you won't repeat your psychotic rationalization for your interest in, and defense of, photograpgic images of naked young boys. Nobody wanys to road that nonsense from a demonstrably guilty child porn enthusiast and apologist. It's a sickness with which you are, sadly, afflucted, but you fail to recognize,it. Or else you do know that you have this illness that places at risk any children within reach, but you naturally do not wish to admit to it publicly. So toss at me all the enraged face-saving lies, ratiinalizations and wild insults you can think of. They are, after all, only angry words from an angry man who has irrevoccably revealed his approval of child pornography and the abuse of inbocent children that it entails. None of it can alter your reality, much less liberate you from your illness.
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#608 Feb 26, 2013
**(correction) "Nobody wants to read any more of that nonsense from ... etc"
Largelanguage

Buckley, UK

#609 Feb 27, 2013
Rush wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are not even CLOSE to being a man.
What's that, sonnyboy?
Largelanguage

Buckley, UK

#610 Feb 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
I think she was scared off by the manic trolls. At least they didn't tell her that she should get raped, as they did to Karie. But she probably sensed that they would if she stuck long enough.
Anyway it would have made a change talking about nude swimming girls, ahem... women, instead of the constant bombardment about naked boys by the sick troll duo.
Is it because you blush while talking about naked boys?
SLC

Arlington, VA

#611 Feb 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> You have "explained", you say, but what you offer is a rationalization. You see nothing wrong with that site or its lurid photographic content. You should know better, but you, like DJW and Bob, can only deny what you have done or otherwise justify jt. I am relieved that you won't repeat your psychotic rationalization for your interest in, and defense of, photograpgic images of naked young boys. Nobody wanys to road that nonsense from a demonstrably guilty child porn enthusiast and apologist. It's a sickness with which you are, sadly, afflucted, but you fail to recognize,it. Or else you do know that you have this illness that places at risk any children within reach, but you naturally do not wish to admit to it publicly. So toss at me all the enraged face-saving lies, ratiinalizations and wild insults you can think of. They are, after all, only angry words from an angry man who has irrevoccably revealed his approval of child pornography and the abuse of inbocent children that it entails. None of it can alter your reality, much less liberate you from your illness.
"Lurid" photographic content? Mr. Maltamon must be kidding us. We can argue whether showing photographs of naked underage boys (or girls for that matter) is appropriate and/or legal but there is nothing "lurid" about the photographs on that site. All but one of them shows rear nudity and the boys in the one photograph showing frontal nudity appear to me to be 18 or older, as I stated earlier on. No erections or sexual acts are shown; that would be "lurid".
I think we should consider what the purpose of that site is. It is to provide evidence that, among other things, boys swam naked in high school and the YMCA, a fact that many on this forum and others on Topix, and even on Brad's site initially denied. Some were unimpressed with my reminiscences of my high school experiences, and the reminiscences of others but it is much harder to deny articles printed in newspapers and photographic evidence, particularly that produced before digital cameras and Photoshopping were introduced. Your can't deny the reminiscences of various individuals and then complain when photographic evidence backs them up with allegations of child pornography. That's trying to have your cake and eating it too.

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
MaltaMon chief suspect in abuse scandal 23 hr Will Now Charge 1
More from around the web