Modesty: It's for Boys, Too

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#60 Feb 9, 2014
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> More pedophile fantasies from Pedo Bob of Dorval, Canada, a "man" (or so he says) in his fifties who is so embarrassed by his own lack of control when it comes to fantasizing about naked schoolboys and child sexual abuse that he uses my screen name instead of his when he posts them. It's terribly, terribly sick and sad. Obviously, there is no stopping him. That is why pedophiles should be put away for life: they cannot be rehabilitated.
Since you and Phil are the only ones who read and comment on DJW's every post you must enjoy reading them. So what does that make you?
There's no hiding the fact that you are both pedophiles.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#61 Feb 9, 2014
MaltaMon wrote:
Mens shorts, if they MUST wear them, should ALWAYS come above the knee. My 16 year old nephew August, refuses to wear anything below mid-thigh, as he has very pretty legs. Often refuses to wear any pants at all. For some men this might seem extreme, but frankly, if shorts feminize men why would you want to prohibit them? And shorts shorter than the knee are frankly a turn on.
Swimming for Boys and Men:
When swimming boys should remove their swim suits. Perfect as protection from immodesty, as well as for attracting older men. Recently on my Facebook page, I posted a picture of my first visit to a family nudist beach this year. You guessed it, all of the boys had no swim suitss on!
I did say flexible up there didn’t I?
Well, being my first venture out to the lake after a long winter and I couldn’t find my binoculars! So, yes, I didn’t skip the lake, as it is private, and found them for next time. Let’s be reasonable. God didn’t intend for our modesty to rule our life with an iron rod did He?
Men should not wear swim suits either. Respect your bodies and admire the bodies of other males. Why do you want to tempt men other than your boyfriend to look at you without a shirt ? For the sheer pleasure of it, of course. Do you respect your body and want to keep it attractive for others? Then do the same and build a strong buttocks!
In summary;
Be flexible, but be firm. Boys will respect themselves and act more like gentlemen if they too will be taught to swim nude when young.
Men, if your going around wearing a skirt and people are giving you a hard time, I highly recommend you take the time to educate yourself with some of the powerful statements made from past Popes and Saints about modesty. I am not making this stuff up.
Why ? Our Lady of Felatio requested modesty in moderation. She said,“Fashions would be introduced that will much please Our Libido.” While these statements very much point to boys, they were left vague we need only look at society today and realize they apply to men as well. In a day and age where men’s place in the home and society is being shaken to the core, we must return back to some form of sanity. Boys and men today are more caught up with vanity than they know. It’s not about how good they look, it is how much they can fulfill the desires of other males, that God has given them as sons, students, husbands and if God wills, priests!
Sounds perfectly like the cross-dressing, gay pervert Maltamon of PA to me.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#62 Feb 9, 2014
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
".... while most lusting men put the responsibility for their temptation totally upon the boys!"
My point exactly.
Queers like Bob blame the child for tempting them, leading them on.
Men like Bob are the worst kind of perverts.
"It is normal for men to react to boys' buttocks and other parts of the male body"
Only for men like Bob, DJW and Zuiko.
You mean pedo-gay perverts like you and Maltamon.
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#64 Feb 9, 2014
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what I keep pointing out to MaltaMon the Molester and Pedo Phil, but the thick little hypocrites just don't get it.
What the hypocrites like Bob, Zuiko/DJW don't get is the pedo's are those who take time to think of and post about their desire to spank nude boys (I never did that) and who have and post their unhealthy interest in what goes on in boy's locker rooms (I didn't do that either) but they are too stupid to grasp this simple concept.
The real pedo's, those who are a danger to children are the above who cannot or will not see that they have serious issues and are like the sort of sleazebags who tell the judge that the girl deserved to be raped and asked for it because he was wearing a short skirt.
Instead of sending me my air fare (as you are obviously full of shit and haven't the balls) spend the money on a psychiatrist instead.
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#65 Feb 9, 2014
That should be "She" was wearing a short skirt but then again Bob probably prefers his boys in skirts.
That is probably about as close to a woman as he (and DJW/Zuiko) will get and this way in his eyes he has the best of both worlds.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#67 Mar 13, 2014
I cant imagine kids doing that at school. My 13 yr old son wears a Brief Style Swim suit when he swims at school. At home he and his sister swims nude but thats a little different
MaltaMon

Conshohocken, PA

#68 Mar 13, 2014
Phil wrote:
That should be "She" was wearing a short skirt but then again Bob probably prefers his boys in skirts.
That is probably about as close to a woman as he (and DJW/Zuiko) will get and this way in his eyes he has the best of both worlds.
Their "women" have all been male. These are not straight men, and that much is obvious from their appalling repeated testimony of their sexual obsessions with undeveloped male minors and their equally glaring ignorance of adult females and the female body Just a bunch of queer pedophiles whose only response to the obvious about their sexuality is to project it, without the slightest evidence, onto those who point out to them their sexual fixation on male children..
Bob

Mont-saint-hilaire, Canada

#71 Mar 15, 2014
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hypocrites like Bob, Zuiko/DJW don't get is the pedo's are those who take time to think of and post about their desire to spank nude boys (I never did that) and who have and post their unhealthy interest in what goes on in boy's locker rooms (I didn't do that either) but they are too stupid to grasp this simple concept.
The real pedo's, those who are a danger to children are the above who cannot or will not see that they have serious issues and are like the sort of sleazebags who tell the judge that the girl deserved to be raped and asked for it because he was wearing a short skirt.
Instead of sending me my air fare (as you are obviously full of shit and haven't the balls) spend the money on a psychiatrist instead.
Still flogging that dead horse about me offering to pay your airfare IF you showed up and then wimping out?
I offered to pay your airfare WHEN you showed up, and as an aside, after the original challenge was accepted.

And to refresh your memory:

Pedo Phil: "if we met I bet you would shit your pants."
Bob: "I await your arrival."

I'm still waiting.
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#72 Mar 16, 2014
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Still flogging that dead horse about me offering to pay your airfare IF you showed up and then wimping out?
I offered to pay your airfare WHEN you showed up, and as an aside, after the original challenge was accepted.
And to refresh your memory:
Pedo Phil: "if we met I bet you would shit your pants."
Bob: "I await your arrival."
I'm still waiting.
"I offered to pay your airfare WHEN you showed up, and as an aside, after the original challenge was accepted"

Not true.
Your original words were ".....I'll even pay his air fair".
You didn't say "when he shows up"
The condition that you would refund the air fare after the presentation of the ticket stub was added later.
It's all out there in the public domain on this forum.
It is you who is running scared and imposing new conditions.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#73 Mar 16, 2014
djw wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes your right ignore maltamon he got excited when you said your children swim nude at home!
I dont see whats wrong with that, obviously they cant do that at school but they dont mind at home and it saves on laundry :)
Bob

Mont-saint-hilaire, Canada

#75 Mar 17, 2014
Generally, a "condition" or "moving the goal posts" makes a situation more difficult.

However, when you issued your challenge, I said "I await your arrival", and the offer to pay your airfaire made the situation easier for you, not more difficult. But you are the one making "conditions". You turned around and said, oh no, Bob has to pay my airfare IN ADVANCE, something I never offered to do. This is a "condition", making the situation more difficult, not easier. You are the one moving goalposts.

But let's make it easy. Let's go back to your original offer and my original response. No conditions, no facilitations, no ifs ands or buts:

Pedo Phil: "If we met, you would shit your pants."

Bob: "I await your arrival."

So that's it. Challenge offered, challenge accepted

I'm waiting.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#77 Aug 13, 2014
Bob wrote:
Phil, I'm still waiting.
Don't worry, the knock on the door will come one day and you can explain to the vistors and then to your family and to your employer what you find so amusing about child abuse.
I'd love to hear you try to explain that one.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#79 Aug 13, 2014
Bob wrote:
I don't have to explain anything to anyone.
Especially why I find a subject amusing or not.
It's called "freedom of conscience", A-hole.
I think Family Guy is funny. I think Howard Stern is not funny. This, and what my opinions are on any other subject, including child abuse, is my own business. I don't have to explain myself to the PTA, the NBA, the FBI, the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Scotland Yard, or the Charbonneau Commission.
So mange la marde, you "kindly old choir master".
Hahahahaha!
"...what my opinions are on any other subject, including child abuse, is my own business"

Not any more.
You have made that very clear and very publicly.
I'm sure your family and your workmates will be so proud and very understanding when you do have to explain it all :)
Phil

Manchester, UK

#80 Aug 13, 2014
You can also discuss why you consider DJW as a "colleague", a man who clearly has an unhealthy fixation with children.
What fun you will have.
MaltaMon

Allentown, PA

#84 Aug 13, 2014
Bob wrote:
And Phil, I don't have to explain my association with DJW either. It's called "Freedom of Association", A-hole.
You're quite right about that, Pedo Baby: You don't have to explain your relationship with your "colleague" DJW. To your readers, who include the police, the purpose of that "association", of your affinity toward one another, is self-evident.
Bob

Châteauguay, Canada

#87 Aug 14, 2014
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> You're quite right about that, Pedo Baby: You don't have to explain your relationship with your "colleague" DJW. To your readers, who include the police, the purpose of that "association", of your affinity toward one another, is self-evident.
Yes, I am quite right about that, moron.
Since neither DJW nor myself have broken any laws, I doubt very much the police are reading what I write.
I do know who IS reading what we write. Exclusively you and Phil. You just can't get enough. The more I post, the more you read. What a hypocritical, pathetic liar you are.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#88 Aug 15, 2014
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am quite right about that, moron.
Since neither DJW nor myself have broken any laws, I doubt very much the police are reading what I write.
I do know who IS reading what we write. Exclusively you and Phil. You just can't get enough. The more I post, the more you read. What a hypocritical, pathetic liar you are.
"Exclusively you and Phil"

We've been through this.
There is a difference between reading and responding.
You post on threads created by others and assume because they don't respond nobody else is reading.
Pathetic liar, you are indeed.
MaltaMon

New Castle, DE

#91 Aug 15, 2014
Bob wrote:
But Phil, what you claim I do, if true, is still not illegal.
what law have I broken?
(and if anyone else IS reading and not responding, how do you know
they disagree with what I write? One thing is not under dispute: you and MaltaMon read everything that DJW and myself write. We know what you want, and we deliver. Methinks the two losers doth protest too much!)
Now isn't that interesting? A fifty year-old man, who insists against all logov that he's "heterosexual" and "would never harm a child" (Topix, 2012), holds himself and his disgraceful conduct as a man to the standard of legality, and only to that standard. Yes, he can and will continue to post the most awful fantasies about the sexual abuse of innocent young boys by a predator, all of them emanating from his twisted, sexually-perverted imagination, because, he insists, no statute on the books can stop him from doing it. And to Pedo Bob, that renders him a decent, moral, conscientious adult whose thoughts of harming children are entirely defensible. And he says we are "pathetic". Bob, you should retire from Topix and get rid of all your hard drives. If what you do isn't worthy of investigation into what you may be hiding on your computers, nothing is. You're playing with fire. My hope is that you won't take our warnings seriously--as no sociopath would--and will continue to play until you're caught. And remember: your internet service provider and Topix, both of which have surrendered online files to authorities before in Canada, the US and the UK, will have plenty of evidence against you.
MaltaMon

Warwick, MD

#92 Aug 15, 2014
Yes, Pedo Bob, keep right on talking. Keep right on posting your deranged perverted musings about child sexual abuse. It's precisely the sort of online activity that police look for these days to identify child sexual predators. Nine times in ten, there is a sexual predator behind such postings. Because no adult who cares about the safety of children is capable of putting out there for the public the sort of perverted material you create and post: usually, it's the activity of sociopaths who prey upon children to satisfy their sexual cravings. They'll confiscate your computers, and they will go through them with software that will uncover anything that's been erased from their hard drives. Obviously, DJW's computer is filled with child pornography and pedophile smut that he's downloaded and posted non-stop for several years under a dozen identities. So his freedom and reputation are truly at risk. I don't know if you have downloaded any kiddie porn, Pedo Baby, but once they've started to investigate you, you will be doomed. "Methinks they doth protest too much"? Lol!!! Wishful thinking, my sick, boy-lusting neighbor across the border. Yes, we protest. And that's all we do. The authorities can have my hard drives today if they wish. Topix can turn over to them every statement I've ever posted. There is nothing among them that expresses any sexual hunger for children. Seventy percent of yours do. The rest just attack Phil and me, as well as a few others. All of mine attack you and the other pedophiles. None express anything that derides children sexually or promotes the sexual abuse of children. Nearly three-quarters of your postings do, Bob. And DJW: you'll be arrested before Bob. You fit the profile of a child pornographer. Bob falls into a slightly more ambiguous category, albeit one no less a danger to children.
Phil

UK

#94 Aug 15, 2014
Bob wrote:
And one time out of ten, it's not a sexual predator, just an ordinary guy using an anonymous forum to mock two morons who deny they like smut, even though they return daily for more.
I use a second-hand laptop that I bought at a flea market for cash. I have software that cleans my hard drive completely. And I surf from internet cafes, using Incognito or Inprivate. So good luck tracking me.
And once again, what I post may be controversial, but it's NOT ILLEGAL.
I have committed no crime.
Which reminds me, moron, three years ago you claimed that:
-I raped your son
-there are other victims
-the police are tracking me
-I post child pornography
-I lure victims on line
-you know my name and address (but for legal reasons couldn't reveal them here)
-my arrest was imminent
I gave examples from the news of men who had been arrested for merely attempting to lure someone, yet you could never provide a reason why a dangerous offender like myself had not been arrested.
So what's happening with that? Did you abandon your crusade to bring me to justice? Did the police botch the investigation? Did your son recant?
... or was the whole story just a bunch of baloney?(You and I both know the answer, but for legal reasons, we can't reveal it here)
And now, along with your lover Phil, you're starting the whole process all over again. I'm surprised you haven't said I'll be arrested "soon", or "any day now"!
Mange la marde, moron, and tell your boring boyfriend Phil he can go and get stuPhed.
Hahahaha!
If you have nothing to hide or to be embarrassed about why would you feel the need to surf anonymously from internet cafes and to have software that cleans your hard drive, which I doubt would hide anything from the resources the police have at their disposal?

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
EMC E20-007 Data Scientist Certification Inform... 1 hr bestexaminformation 1
Get MCSD: Windows Store Apps Certification usin... 1 hr bestexaminformation 1
Updated 400-201 questions and answers 400-201 r... 2 hr updated exams 1
156-215.77 Check Point Certified Security Admin... 2 hr freetestexam 2
70-385 Recertification for MCSE: Messaging exam... 2 hr freetestexam 2
Cisco 400-101 CCIE Routing and Switching Writte... 4 hr Cisco 400-101 1
Quick Tips for P9050-005 Exam Get Actual P9050-... 6 hr Updated Exam Free 1
More from around the web