Did You Swim Nude In High School?

Posted in the Education Forum

Comments (Page 34)

Showing posts 661 - 680 of1,101
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
MaltaMon

Lancaster, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#674
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Self-destruction. That is your destiny, Zuiko/FortySomething/Sir Gallahad. You are well on the way as I write this. Carry on.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#675
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MaltaMon wrote:
Self-destruction. That is your destiny, Zuiko/FortySomething/Sir Gallahad. You are well on the way as I write this. Carry on.
Only maniacs are self-destructive. So carry on.
SLC

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#676
Feb 27, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Nah You silly man. That sort of statement is not worthy of one of your distinguished educational pedigree. "Brad's" site--is "Brad" your friend, btw? Or must he address you as "Doctor"?--engages in speculation itself. Look at its "conclusions" with regard to the employment of female instructors of classes which young boys were required to attend entirely nude. There IS no conclusive evidence, so he simply states that it was common for women to be hired to teach boys whose nudity in their classes was mandated by the same authorities. Now, as a volunteer consultant to an organization that assists police departments at every level, along with the FBI, in identifying child predators, child pornographers and collectors and distributors of child pornography (look at the arrests in New Jersey's recent sting operation just today... I worked in that effort), I have an understanding of what these web sites promote, why they exist, for whom they are intended. Fellows such as your pal "Brad" have adjusted to the dramatically heightened level of awareness of child pornography, of the effort to incarcerate those who traffic in it, of child-protection criminal statutes and of the vigilance of officials and volunteers to identify those perpetrators and to remove them from our communities. "Brad" is no scholar, no historian; his "work" as presented on his site is not serious research, nor is it intended to be. It is a location at which those, such as my Canadian friend "Bob", my find images of bare-assed young boys for the purpose of satisfying their sexual interests and desires. Not speculation, Mr. SLC. Experience. It may be comforting for you to sit at your computer and engage in the critical thinking that you so enjoy, but you misdirect your long-practiced facility for doubt and suspicion. You should direct your attention toward "Brad" and those like him, who cloak their true intentions within the guise of serious, non-sexual inquiry. But he and those like him are fooling, these days, only the most gullible among us.
In the first place, Brad is not my friend. I don't know him, have never met him, wouldn't know who he was if he walked into a room and have never corresponded with him in any way, shape, form, or regard. Furthermore, he resides in San Diego while I reside in the Washington, D.C. area so we are very, very unlikely to ever run into each other. I am also not a member of his forum.

As for the relationship between Brad and Google, I have a flash for MaltaMon. If there was the slightest thought in the heads of their lawyers that Brad's site was purveying child porn, they would have shut him down a long time ago. Since MaltaMon claims to work with law enforcement to ferret out child porn purveyors, why doesn't he report Brad to those authorities? Time to make it or get off the pot. I would be willing to wager a significant sum of money that, if he did report Brad's site to the authorities, either federal or in California, they would soon inform him that it doesn't meet the criteria for child porn. Sorry about that but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

MaltaMon

Lancaster, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#677
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Only maniacs are self-destructive. So carry on.
Oh, mu goodness, no! Wrong again. You really believe that the tendency toward self-destructive behavior is that restrictive? Proof that you are unqualified to make,any such assessment. That is not to suggest, however, that youcare not both. Now go ahead, Original Thinker: tell me yet again that I am what I have said you are.
SLC

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#678
Feb 27, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Nah You silly man. That sort of statement is not worthy of one of your distinguished educational pedigree. "Brad's" site--is "Brad" your friend, btw? Or must he address you as "Doctor"?--engages in speculation itself. Look at its "conclusions" with regard to the employment of female instructors of classes which young boys were required to attend entirely nude. There IS no conclusive evidence, so he simply states that it was common for women to be hired to teach boys whose nudity in their classes was mandated by the same authorities. Now, as a volunteer consultant to an organization that assists police departments at every level, along with the FBI, in identifying child predators, child pornographers and collectors and distributors of child pornography (look at the arrests in New Jersey's recent sting operation just today... I worked in that effort), I have an understanding of what these web sites promote, why they exist, for whom they are intended. Fellows such as your pal "Brad" have adjusted to the dramatically heightened level of awareness of child pornography, of the effort to incarcerate those who traffic in it, of child-protection criminal statutes and of the vigilance of officials and volunteers to identify those perpetrators and to remove them from our communities. "Brad" is no scholar, no historian; his "work" as presented on his site is not serious research, nor is it intended to be. It is a location at which those, such as my Canadian friend "Bob", my find images of bare-assed young boys for the purpose of satisfying their sexual interests and desires. Not speculation, Mr. SLC. Experience. It may be comforting for you to sit at your computer and engage in the critical thinking that you so enjoy, but you misdirect your long-practiced facility for doubt and suspicion. You should direct your attention toward "Brad" and those like him, who cloak their true intentions within the guise of serious, non-sexual inquiry. But he and those like him are fooling, these days, only the most gullible among us.
Here's what Brad actually said relative to boys swimming nude in the presence of women:
"We have concluded from them that during the first half of the 20th century, although '''uncommon''', there is documented evidence of such things as females teaching swimming classes where boys were required to be naked, and in some cases, swim meet exhibitions where boys swam nude while being watched by mixed-gender audiences."
MaltaMon has erroneously quoted Brad as saying that CFNM situations were common. In fact, he said it was uncommon, as can be seen above. The only disagreement between Brad and MaltaMon is how uncommon. MaltaMon and I agreed some time ago that, in fact, it was very, very uncommon. The only school venues in the US where it might have occurred was in alternate school environments, such as Summerhill. I can't speak for the UK or Continental Europe.
As I have related previously in these forums, I was not enamored with the requirement of skinny dipping in high school swim classes, which, aside from any issues of bashfulness or modesty it is, IMHO, dangerous if one dives off either the 1 or 3 meter boards. I related the experience of a boy named Jay who did a belly flop off the 1 meter board and barely made it to the pool apron. If he had dived off the 3 meter board and belly flopped, he might have been seriously injured.
MaltaMon

Lancaster, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#679
Feb 27, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Love the cartoon peanut and dim light bulb, but I really do prefer the cute mean yellow face to the red cross.
SLC

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#681
Feb 28, 2013
 
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
You expect us to believe brad who also runs CFNM(nude MALE clothed female)sites?
It's not a question of believing Brad. His position on the issue differs from MaltaMon's only as to how uncommon CFNM situations occurred in YMCA and high school venues. Brad says only uncommon, MaltaMon and I say very, very uncommon. And, as I have stated previously, Brad and the moderators on his CFNM site are quite assiduous in removing anything with the smell of child porn. In fact, if it's even questionable they err on the side of caution and remove it.
SLC

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#683
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know brad tries to remove it? MaltaMon claims that many porn sites claim boys swam nude just for an excuse for nude boy porn.
If Largelanguage thinks that Brad and his moderators don't remove any posted underage porn a soon as they observe it, go over there and try to find some.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#686
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Brad puts photos of porn on there himself, are you saying he deletes porn he creates?
You seem very familiar with these porno sites, dirty, hypocrite bugger.
MaltaMon

Toughkenamon, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#688
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SLC wrote:
<quoted text>
If Largelanguage thinks that Brad and his moderators don't remove any posted underage porn a soon as they observe it, go over there and try to find some.
As I have insisted a number of times, that photo of the kids in the gang shower is pornographic by today's much more strict stsndards. As are the kids in the pool With the articles he posts, the text should suffice to prove that boys had to go to swim class nude..I find appalling, and suspicious, the claim of any adult that one must actually SEE those naked boys to understand the rules imposed on boys in those communities. And once again, seeing all those naked kids in the shower enlightens nobodycwith regard to swim classes back in the day. They are showering, for God's sake! It is there purely to satisfy the sexual interest and desire that visitors to that site have for underaged boys. The very purpose of pornography.
SLC

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#690
Feb 28, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> As I have insisted a number of times, that photo of the kids in the gang shower is pornographic by today's much more strict stsndards. As are the kids in the pool With the articles he posts, the text should suffice to prove that boys had to go to swim class nude..I find appalling, and suspicious, the claim of any adult that one must actually SEE those naked boys to understand the rules imposed on boys in those communities. And once again, seeing all those naked kids in the shower enlightens nobodycwith regard to swim classes back in the day. They are showering, for God's sake! It is there purely to satisfy the sexual interest and desire that visitors to that site have for underaged boys. The very purpose of pornography.
And, as I have stated numerous times, the photograph in evidence was originally published in Life Magazine. If MaltaMon is convinced that the photograph showing the boys showering is child pornography, report it to the authorities in California, or alternatively, file a criminal complaint against Brad and Google. As I stated before, if MaltaMon feels that strongly about it, make it or get off the pot.
Katie Mellish

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#691
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not on them, actually.
Oh no how come you know about them then you little TROLL-GTF.
Katie Mellish

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#692
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet no congregational history of it being allowed either.
Fck off gob shyte.
MaltaMon

Toughkenamon, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#693
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie, Dear. Please watch the language. It may create the wrong impression among those who don't know why you are so angry.(also, since you've reported "trolls", it may compromise your credibility.. You want them to take you seriously and listen to your concerns, don't you, rather than admonish you for inappropriate language.. Seriously..) Please, my dear, it is neither necessary nor becoming. Please.
Katie Mellish

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#694
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MaltaMon wrote:
Katie, Dear. Please watch the language. It may create the wrong impression among those who don't know why you are so angry.(also, since you've reported "trolls", it may compromise your credibility.. You want them to take you seriously and listen to your concerns, don't you, rather than admonish you for inappropriate language.. Seriously..) Please, my dear, it is neither necessary nor becoming. Please.
LOL xx.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#695
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

isn't he a proper dandy.... imagine him passing advice to our Katie ! He (maybe a she) better save his sugar babble for the sheriff methinks.... The sad thing is Katie is the LAST person on topix to show it any patience....jest sayin'..
Katie Mellish

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#696
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

coyote wrote:
isn't he a proper dandy.... imagine him passing advice to our Katie ! He (maybe a she) better save his sugar babble for the sheriff methinks.... The sad thing is Katie is the LAST person on topix to show it any patience....jest sayin'..
To Coyote hello the only patience i will show that TROLL is this....i will only be as patiant with IT for as long as it takes me to load up.After that..........
MaltaMon

Toughkenamon, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#697
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie Mellish wrote:
<quoted text>To Coyote hello the only patience i will show that TROLL is this....i will only be as patiant with IT for as long as it takes me to load up.After that..........
All right, Katie, Dear. Adieu.
Katie Mellish

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#698
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> All right, Katie, Dear. Adieu.
Enough said....

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#699
Feb 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie Mellish wrote:
<quoted text>Oh no how come you know about them then you little TROLL-GTF.
The dirty bugger thinks he's fooling anyone.
He is also familiar with NAMBLA, as is his friend Malmon, and they're accusing others of being pedophile...what a farce.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 661 - 680 of1,101
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

8 Users are viewing the Education Forum right now

Search the Education Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Ethical Arguments against or for higher ed and ... 4 hr Krod27 1
Does Your School Still Have A Mandated Shower R... 10 hr Phil 7
HS nude swimming 12 hr Dont joke Winlow 110
cmnf (May '13) 12 hr Phil 136
Carrollton Free Press Standard Letters to the E... 18 hr Bob 1
Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Certification Exa... Wed caffuli 1
Microsoft 70-417 Dumps Windows Server 2012 Cert... Wed caffuli 1
•••
•••
•••
•••