MaltaMon

Phillipsburg, NJ

#790 Mar 8, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one question for you Phil, do you believe MaltaMon's son was not at all raped? If so, you have no reason to completely doubt MaltaMon.
That's NOT FAIR!! You can't hold Phil to any reasonable adult standard. There are standards and then there are standards. Those that apply to him apply uniquely to him. He pretty much gives himself a free pass to do anything and to say anything he wishes. And yet, of course, he still isn't satisfied.
Bonb

Dorval, Canada

#791 Mar 8, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Just one question for you Phil, do you believe MaltaMon's son was not at all raped? If so, you have no reason to completely doubt MaltaMon.
MaltaMon's son was not raped because MaltaMon does not have a son.
Consequently, Largelanguage was not brainwashed by MaltaMon because Largelanguage does not have a brain.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#792 Mar 8, 2013
Applause- that is better than the crude stuff...jest sayin'.... By the way- there is some suspicion that it is quite possible "Peggy" and MM (aka Molly) are twin sisters. jest thot U might be interested.....note: this post is from MM's Tink- not the real coyote......
Bob

Dorval, Canada

#793 Mar 8, 2013
"Good be"...!
Phil

UK

#794 Mar 9, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> OMG.. Lol!! So says the "man" who has absolutely no shame--a guy who tacitly endorses paedophilia and believes that there is nothing wrong with child pornography. And YOU are embarrassing yourself. Don't be concerned, Large: the man's standards are impossible to follow. There are standards and then there are STANDARDS. Standards for those who make him feel like the fool that he is, standards for everyone else, and then there are a very few standards for him--none of which correspond to those of the first category, although they deal with the same words, behaviors, and mindsets.
This from a man who tacitly endorses child abuse of a different kind and is too stupid to see the hypocrit that he is.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#795 Mar 9, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> OMG.. Lol!! So says the "man" who has absolutely no shame--a guy who tacitly endorses paedophilia and believes that there is nothing wrong with child pornography. And YOU are embarrassing yourself. Don't be concerned, Large: the man's standards are impossible to follow. There are standards and then there are STANDARDS. Standards for those who make him feel like the fool that he is, standards for everyone else, and then there are a very few standards for him--none of which correspond to those of the first category, although they deal with the same words, behaviors, and mindsets.
Standards.
Lets talk standards, specifically your double standards that prompt you to condemn (as I do) the peddlers and promoters of child porn but allow you to turn a blind eye to hate crime and the abuse of children who are different (explain that one to your son or to a devastated family left behind after that child is pushed over the edge)) on the basis that those who condone it have strong religious convictions.
You have been sat on the fence so long you must have splinters up your ass.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#797 Mar 9, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Bet that intimidated you! LOOOLLLL!!!!!
Who was that addressed to?
You really haven't got the hang of this, have you?
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#800 Mar 9, 2013
coyote wrote:
Applause- that is better than the crude stuff...jest sayin'.... By the way- there is some suspicion that it is quite possible "Peggy" and MM (aka Molly) are twin sisters. jest thot U might be interested.....note: this post is from MM's Tink- not the real coyote......
"Peggy"... Lol.
FRE

Albuquerque, NM

#804 Mar 10, 2013
To find the history of nude swimming, do a google search on "history nude swimming". The relevant hit is titled "Historic Archives - Nude Male Swimming. It's a google site the address of which ends with "4maleswimming/".

I'd post the link, but I'm not sure that this site permits doing so.

The site includes a very extensive history of nude swimming going back to about the 16 century; reading all of it, including the various links, would take about two hours.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#805 Mar 10, 2013
FRE wrote:
To find the history of nude swimming, do a google search on "history nude swimming". The relevant hit is titled "Historic Archives - Nude Male Swimming. It's a google site the address of which ends with "4maleswimming/".
I'd post the link, but I'm not sure that this site permits doing so.
The site includes a very extensive history of nude swimming going back to about the 16 century; reading all of it, including the various links, would take about two hours.
I have already posted that link at Malmon's request, to which his only answer was that it was a porno site. Would you believe?
I suggest you post it again and join the club which according to him are child molesters...hahahaha...You have been warned.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#806 Mar 10, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
LOOOLLL!!!!
Change your language, Lilly boy!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#807 Mar 10, 2013
Or is it lolly boy?
MaltaMon

Riverton, NJ

#808 Mar 10, 2013
Photos of naked middle-school boys in a gang shower have nothing to do with nude swimming. In fact, photos of boys swimming nude aren't necessary to prove the point. They are there for the adult male bou-loving perverts under the guise of "documentation" obtained by serious historians on the course of their "research". The child-protection laws, and what the new laws regard as child pornography, lead the porn enthusiasts to present the phoros of nude boys in this way. But it's a tissue-thin hoax. The authentic newspaper articles themselves suffice to make the case. Try again, poor Zuiko. Only like-minded perverts would refuse to admit what every reasonable, honest, mature adult knows when tbey see these photos.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#809 Mar 10, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
Photos of naked middle-school boys in a gang shower have nothing to do with nude swimming. In fact, photos of boys swimming nude aren't necessary to prove the point. They are there for the adult male bou-loving perverts under the guise of "documentation" obtained by serious historians on the course of their "research". The child-protection laws, and what the new laws regard as child pornography, lead the porn enthusiasts to present the phoros of nude boys in this way. But it's a tissue-thin hoax. The authentic newspaper articles themselves suffice to make the case. Try again, poor Zuiko. Only like-minded perverts would refuse to admit what every reasonable, honest, mature adult knows when tbey see these photos.
You mean...only dirty-minded perverts like you would see them as such. Tell us more about your "raped son" fantasies, pervert.
MaltaMon

Quakertown, PA

#810 Mar 10, 2013
No, buddy. The law. You are dangerously behind the times. As you yourself said, "opinions are not fact". I just worked on a case in NJ, as I mentioned to you four friggin' times in the past ten days already, in which a dozen men aged 21 to 68 were arrested merely for accessing photos of naked children. All their computers were seiezed as well. In Arizona, a couples' daughters were removed from their home for over a year while their parents were charged with taking and possessing pornographic photos of their own daughters. The girls were not even close to naked, but covered in bath towels (having just finished their bath) from their shoulders to their calves. It took the court over a year to decide tgat the parents were innocent of possession of child porn , thst the parents, because they were the girls' parents, had kept the photos "without malice". The children were between ten and thirteen years old . No skin or body part showing on the girld between their heads and lower legs. Had the accused NOT been their parents, anf had the girls themselves NOT testified to the innocence of the photos the owners of the pics would have gone to prison. You cannot assume any longet, you petulant little boy of a man, that it is NOT criminal to have in your posession even partially nude photos of any umderaged people. So stop your stupid projectionist rsnts and wise up. What you did by cutrent legal standards of child protection and social standards of decency, is indefensible. Thrte is no excuse. So stop defending this shit . It is criminal to have it. It is criminal to post it on the internet. Idiot.
MaltaMon

Quakertown, PA

#811 Mar 10, 2013
And if you are Canadian, you will have already, by your stupid comments on a thread that is under surveillance, invited an investigation of your online history. All of it. Grow the hell up. This is serious shit. And it has been since the middle of the last decade.
MaltaMon

Quakertown, PA

#812 Mar 10, 2013
Only an idiot would take his cues from Bob, who feels more secure if he has company. What has he got to lose by convincing you that I am lying? But you could lose everything by taking his advice. Will he defend you if you're arrested? But if you don't want to take my word for it, you should consult an attorney. I have nothing to gain if you do, and nothing to lose if you don't. Think about it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#813 Mar 10, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
No, buddy. The law. You are dangerously behind the times. As you yourself said, "opinions are not fact". I just worked on a case in NJ, as I mentioned to you four friggin' times in the past ten days already, in which a dozen men aged 21 to 68 were arrested merely for accessing photos of naked children. All their computers were seiezed as well. In Arizona, a couples' daughters were removed from their home for over a year while their parents were charged with taking and possessing pornographic photos of their own daughters. The girls were not even close to naked, but covered in bath towels (having just finished their bath) from their shoulders to their calves. It took the court over a year to decide tgat the parents were innocent of possession of child porn , thst the parents, because they were the girls' parents, had kept the photos "without malice". The children were between ten and thirteen years old . No skin or body part showing on the girld between their heads and lower legs. Had the accused NOT been their parents, anf had the girls themselves NOT testified to the innocence of the photos the owners of the pics would have gone to prison. You cannot assume any longet, you petulant little boy of a man, that it is NOT criminal to have in your posession even partially nude photos of any umderaged people. So stop your stupid projectionist rsnts and wise up. What you did by cutrent legal standards of child protection and social standards of decency, is indefensible. Thrte is no excuse. So stop defending this shit . It is criminal to have it. It is criminal to post it on the internet. Idiot.
Stop with these idiotic rants to get away from the argument that it is YOU who is breaking the law. I know you are angry and desperate after being cornered about who is really breaking the law, and resorting to false insinuations and every form of name calling, all signs of a desperate man.
Your threats are meaningless, I have already challenged you to prove that I posted anything illegal, or any fantasies such as you have about a "raped son" and naked boys in hundreds of your posts.
I have also pointed out to you that it is a serious crime to falsely accuse someone of raping an invented son of yours who exists only in your perverted imagination.
What must also be investigated is your support of someone who has openly said that he wants underage girls to be raped by men.
I hope that the authorities you mention investigate you and your accomplice in these serious crimes.
MaltaMon

Quakertown, PA

#814 Mar 10, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop with these idiotic rants to get away from the argument that it is YOU who is breaking the law. I know you are angry and desperate after being cornered about who is really breaking the law, and resorting to false insinuations and every form of name calling, all signs of a desperate man.
Your threats are meaningless, I have already challenged you to prove that I posted anything illegal, or any fantasies such as you have about a "raped son" and naked boys in hundreds of your posts.
I have also pointed out to you that it is a serious crime to falsely accuse someone of raping an invented son of yours who exists only in your perverted imagination.
What must also be investigated is your support of someone who has openly said that he wants underage girls to be raped by men.
I hope that the authorities you mention investigate you and your accomplice in these serious crimes.
The proof is in the law. I have akready demonstrated six times now that your ownvpostings reveal you unequivocally as,a child porn collector, as one who enjoys graphic tales that depict rge,anak rape of young boys by an adult male, and a homosexual. You accuse me of paedopgilia and homosexuality. I asjed for evidence--OPINIONS ARE NOT PROOFS (sic)"--said Zuiko posting as SircArthur. You ssid you have the proof and will post it. And THIS is yourvproof? Anotger angry, defensive insane rant accusing me again without a,shred of evidence? I said I wkuld prove your actions are criminal. I advised you to seek legal counsel and to learn for yourself. I know what the laws say. It's up to law enforcement in your jurisdiction to determine whether you should be charged. I'm notvyour lawyer. And I certainly don't condone whatvyou have said and have done tovpromote and enable the sexual abuse of children. Just give me your proof about me. And talkvto a lawyer.
MaltaMon

Quakertown, PA

#815 Mar 10, 2013
*** "I NEVER said that I would prove your actions are criminal. "

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
Opt-out: Parents push back against kids' many s... Sun NoneOfTheAbove 1
PARCC tests - NJ parents, students worry about ... Sun NoneOfTheAbove 1
Carlsbad students protest PARCC test Sun LOL 1
There are others with similar questions. Let's ... Sun KabNights 1
Punishment Sun Phil 44
Bob: Were Boys Forced to Attend School Swim Les... (Sep '12) Sun Phil 2,180
Does Your School Still Have A Mandated Shower R... (Apr '14) Sun Danish Jet Wash 59
More from around the web