should spanking be brought back to sc...
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#141 Apr 6, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think all those posts he made as Sir Arthur frothing at the mouth with excitement asking blunt and detailed questions about boys naked and who saw what and where was harmless sarcasm you are more stupid than I thought and the real coward for not condemning him for the pervert and liar he is, but then your silence on such matters speaks volumes about you.
Phil: your inability of relating to context indeed makes you appear to be real-life NERD ! I expect you, as most of us, have been told to go "screw yourself" or "jump in a lake" ! Not too many of us take that literally but you may be one who does- dunno-seems quite likely ! So- when told as such 1) do you do as suggested ? 2) do you deliver a blow to the person making the directive ? 3) Do you turn and walk away? 4) Do you not try to understand the directive was likely not taken in the context of the phrase ? It is not upsetting for the coyote to be reminded of his being stupid as he finds a bit of serenity in knowing he is not as stupid as Phil.... oh- take a long walk off a sort pier !
Phil

Manchester, UK

#142 Apr 6, 2013
coyote wrote:
<quoted text> Phil: your inability of relating to context indeed makes you appear to be real-life NERD ! I expect you, as most of us, have been told to go "screw yourself" or "jump in a lake" ! Not too many of us take that literally but you may be one who does- dunno-seems quite likely ! So- when told as such 1) do you do as suggested ? 2) do you deliver a blow to the person making the directive ? 3) Do you turn and walk away? 4) Do you not try to understand the directive was likely not taken in the context of the phrase ? It is not upsetting for the coyote to be reminded of his being stupid as he finds a bit of serenity in knowing he is not as stupid as Phil.... oh- take a long walk off a sort pier !
My inability to relate to context?
So you really believe Sir Arthur's posts about boys and nudity, about boys should be nude and girls shouldn't and him wanting to know who else was in the room watching the boys were jokey and not to be taken seriously or that I quoted out of context?

And I suppose posts about Large's admission to having a 'thing' for 13 year old girls was also quoted out of context and were jokey responses?

Wake up.
You and Zuiko are fooling nobody.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#143 Apr 6, 2013
His "frothing at the mouth with excitement" fantasy comments prove that this filthy Phil is just another Molly. Even the crass Molly has called him little Phil. But the two are now allies and standing for each other. But who cares about these two hypocrite idiots who refuse to answer the accusations against them. I was never afraid to answer them and prove them fools. But the two cowards remain silent when faced with questions.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#144 Apr 6, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
My inability to relate to context?
So you really believe Sir Arthur's posts about boys and nudity, about boys should be nude and girls shouldn't and him wanting to know who else was in the room watching the boys were jokey and not to be taken seriously or that I quoted out of context?
And I suppose posts about Large's admission to having a 'thing' for 13 year old girls was also quoted out of context and were jokey responses?
Wake up.
You and Zuiko are fooling nobody.
No, YOU think that you are fooling anybody. I asked you my twice repeated question and you refuse to answer. Do you want me to repeat it again, hypocrite ass*ole?
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#145 Apr 6, 2013
Do Not Wake Up Phil ! You seem happy where you are--your reference to LargeLanguage posts vs those of Sir Art - 2 totally different time frames- maybe a KM era and followed by the MM era. Read my previous post again- or do not bother- you are now in a mode of tongue(fingertips)in gear, brain in neutral ! Leastwise I hope that is your only problem ! "fooling nobody " do you actually read what you type ? Who cares about fooling anybody in this forum--methinks only a fool would think that way. Hey, get over yourself and your nerdy, lack of intellect. Long walk- short wharf !!'nother suggestion- ask lL to give you one of his "free" tank tops .....
Phil

Manchester, UK

#146 Apr 6, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
His "frothing at the mouth with excitement" fantasy comments prove that this filthy Phil is just another Molly. Even the crass Molly has called him little Phil. But the two are now allies and standing for each other. But who cares about these two hypocrite idiots who refuse to answer the accusations against them. I was never afraid to answer them and prove them fools. But the two cowards remain silent when faced with questions.
"I was never afraid to answer"

You are having difficulty with the English language.
I proved you are a liar and a pedo.
I am STILL waiting for you to provide evidence to back up your charge that I have a thing for the nude boy swimming forums and I have been on these forums longer than you.
Please remember it was not I who got excited when the discussion turned to boys, showers and nudity and suggested boys modesty was not important and that it didn't matter which sex was supervising the class.
I never posted questions asking who saw the boys in the shower.
Detailed questions in a list format, not in a casual conversation format.
It wasn't me who said boys shouldn't wear swimwear up to a certain age or words to that effect.
I didn't post links to 'suspect' websites.
Need I go on?
I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of.
Your silly, childish name calling is just a manifestation of your embarrassment at being caught red handed, so to speak.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#147 Apr 6, 2013
coyote wrote:
Do Not Wake Up Phil ! You seem happy where you are--your reference to LargeLanguage posts vs those of Sir Art - 2 totally different time frames- maybe a KM era and followed by the MM era. Read my previous post again- or do not bother- you are now in a mode of tongue(fingertips)in gear, brain in neutral ! Leastwise I hope that is your only problem ! "fooling nobody " do you actually read what you type ? Who cares about fooling anybody in this forum--methinks only a fool would think that way. Hey, get over yourself and your nerdy, lack of intellect. Long walk- short wharf !!'nother suggestion- ask lL to give you one of his "free" tank tops .....
I usually skip your self indulgent posts.
They bore me rigid.
It would help if you used English and had something to say.
Your humour is lost on me.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#148 Apr 6, 2013
It is english- it says something- no intended humour- that era passed--- however; if you choose to mirror MM and get into a state of false accusations- by all means- go ahead. I assume you do "jump in a lake"- too bad but that is what happens when intended context is not recognized. Associate me Zuiko, Bob all you want- they are decent fellows who exhibit cramps from the filthy trash produced by MM & Large- I applaud anything they throw back at the trolls...my business !!
Phil

Manchester, UK

#149 Apr 6, 2013
And how are the accusations false?
Did he not post a question asking who else was in the room while boys were in the shower?
That sort of question is very much in the context and the sort of questions he asked in detail on other forums which I would wager you have been on Topix long enough to remember, but as long as that era passed that's OK?
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#150 Apr 6, 2013
the context at the time was to banter about stupid things to try and draw some comedic response---you say/feel what you want- it is of no consequence to me. Now, w/o any thoughts of reviewing the filth posted by MM, L or even repro'd by you, bob, zuiko- I expect you were accused on a few posts(esp. by MM) of being pedo, homo, child abuser, voyeur... I am not certain and`refuse to look back... that being the case do you not suggest that against Phil it may be a false accusation ? You ask "And how are the accusations false?" My humble opinion- why would they be false against Phil yet valid against another giving some respect to the context obviously intended at the time.......
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#151 Apr 6, 2013
coyote wrote:
the context at the time was to banter about stupid things to try and draw some comedic response---you say/feel what you want- it is of no consequence to me. Now, w/o any thoughts of reviewing the filth posted by MM, L or even repro'd by you, bob, zuiko- I expect you were accused on a few posts(esp. by MM) of being pedo, homo, child abuser, voyeur... I am not certain and`refuse to look back... that being the case do you not suggest that against Phil it may be a false accusation ? You ask "And how are the accusations false?" My humble opinion- why would they be false against Phil yet valid against another giving some respect to the context obviously intended at the time.......
Now THERE'S an answer you can take to the bank. Child sexual abuse as a topic of comedy. Let's talk about forcing young "boys to their teens" to strip and be forced into groups of other totally bare-assed young boys with clothed authoritarian supervision and clothed female peers mixed in among them. Young boys dominated, abused and humiliated sexually in a school setting as a matter of policy with no adults to protect them. Just imagine the many "comedic responses" that will elicit from stable, mature middle-aged men. You know, coyote, your lie about these sick nude-boy posts of your and Zuiko's is actually more disturbing than the truth, which is that you two, at the very least, harbor paedophile tendencies. You two clearly are attracted to young boys, regardless of which way you spin it. What makes the lie worse than the truth is that for it to be true, child sexual abuse is a source of comedy. I'd rather you just admit that you guys cannot control what turns you on sexually--young boys--and that it's nothing to laugh about.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#152 Apr 6, 2013
coyote wrote:
the context at the time was to banter about stupid things to try and draw some comedic response---you say/feel what you want- it is of no consequence to me. Now, w/o any thoughts of reviewing the filth posted by MM, L or even repro'd by you, bob, zuiko- I expect you were accused on a few posts(esp. by MM) of being pedo, homo, child abuser, voyeur... I am not certain and`refuse to look back... that being the case do you not suggest that against Phil it may be a false accusation ? You ask "And how are the accusations false?" My humble opinion- why would they be false against Phil yet valid against another giving some respect to the context obviously intended at the time.......
As I said, I can remember the sort of questions Sir Arthur posted on other forums and they were not in any way a comedic response or simply banter.
He would ask questions not in the form of a casual response but listed one after the other.
They were most definitely the responses of a man excited by the idea of boys in showers or just nude in general and the possibility that there may have been girls or women in the room or at least able to see the boys.
It was clear to a blind man that Sir Arthur got (gets) off on that.
I can recall 'jokingly' telling him to calm down after one post full of questions.
I had his number back then.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#153 Apr 6, 2013
Phil- you, and Molly in post preceding your above, are just horribly wrong and I am sure you realize as much. You have been labelled with all the filthy name calling that Molly can muster- are they not false accusations. I think you know you are hurting from Molly & Large, therefore delving back to a different era and re figuring the presentation to try and dilute the effects MM & Large are imposing on your character...no need...they are trolls to the highest order of filth & lies. Lookit- this crap all started when that MM idiot started ranting about a son abused 8 years ago. If you feel an attachment to that sick mentality-- have at it--- who in heck cares ?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#154 Apr 6, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, I can remember the sort of questions Sir Arthur posted on other forums and they were not in any way a comedic response or simply banter.
He would ask questions not in the form of a casual response but listed one after the other.
They were most definitely the responses of a man excited by the idea of boys in showers or just nude in general and the possibility that there may have been girls or women in the room or at least able to see the boys.
It was clear to a blind man that Sir Arthur got (gets) off on that.
I can recall 'jokingly' telling him to calm down after one post full of questions.
I had his number back then.
Your insinuations don't mean anything, dirty cu*t. I answered all your questions and accusations. Whether you accept them or not is your problem, not mine. I have asked you only one question which you are evading to answer. I will repeat it for the third time again. What is your interest in these topics about nude boys, which you have been following for years? Your silence is proof that you are a closet pedophile, to say the least.
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#155 Apr 6, 2013
coyote wrote:
Phil- you, and Molly in post preceding your above, are just horribly wrong and I am sure you realize as much. You have been labelled with all the filthy name calling that Molly can muster- are they not false accusations. I think you know you are hurting from Molly & Large, therefore delving back to a different era and re figuring the presentation to try and dilute the effects MM & Large are imposing on your character...no need...they are trolls to the highest order of filth & lies. Lookit- this crap all started when that MM idiot started ranting about a son abused 8 years ago. If you feel an attachment to that sick mentality-- have at it--- who in heck cares ?
Is this guy for real?(and by the way, don't you mean to say, "lowest order of filth"? " Placing my "filth" in the "highest order" renders it respectable... as far as "filth" goes)
Phil

Manchester, UK

#156 Apr 6, 2013
coyote wrote:
Phil- you, and Molly in post preceding your above, are just horribly wrong and I am sure you realize as much. You have been labelled with all the filthy name calling that Molly can muster- are they not false accusations. I think you know you are hurting from Molly & Large, therefore delving back to a different era and re figuring the presentation to try and dilute the effects MM & Large are imposing on your character...no need...they are trolls to the highest order of filth & lies. Lookit- this crap all started when that MM idiot started ranting about a son abused 8 years ago. If you feel an attachment to that sick mentality-- have at it--- who in heck cares ?
"you....are just horribly wrong"

You wish I was but sorry to disappoint you.
I know how you 'applaud' all that Bob and Zuiko come out with.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#157 Apr 6, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your insinuations don't mean anything, dirty cu*t. I answered all your questions and accusations. Whether you accept them or not is your problem, not mine. I have asked you only one question which you are evading to answer. I will repeat it for the third time again. What is your interest in these topics about nude boys, which you have been following for years? Your silence is proof that you are a closet pedophile, to say the least.
" I answered all your questions and accusations"

You didn't.
Again.
Still waiting for the evidence I have been on Topix longer than you and that I have a thing about nude boys and swimming.
You and I know that it is your thing.
I provided evidence.
You provide an opinion.
Nothing more.
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#158 Apr 6, 2013
As Zuiko himself once insisted, "Opinions are not proofs (sic)."
Phil

Manchester, UK

#159 Apr 6, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your insinuations don't mean anything, dirty cu*t. I answered all your questions and accusations. Whether you accept them or not is your problem, not mine. I have asked you only one question which you are evading to answer. I will repeat it for the third time again. What is your interest in these topics about nude boys, which you have been following for years? Your silence is proof that you are a closet pedophile, to say the least.
"Your silence is proof that you are a closet pedophile, to say the least"

Is it?
Sorry, but was it me who suggested boys should swim nude while girls shouldn't and that it didn't matter what gender supervised the boys?
Was it me who wanted to know who was in the room while the boys showered, desperately hoping someone would say there was a female teacher in there, typical Sir Arthur questions?
You can bitch all you like.
You know I know what you are like.

For the record I came on here after I discovered, despite my youngest son doing PE for his GCSE's (UK school leaving exams) up to twice a day and also walking to and from school which was quite a distance that he did not shower at school after PE, something which was mandatory when I was at school.
In fact he didn't even change in the locker room but had his PE kit on under his school uniform which simply got covered up again when he finished.
It seemed the boys thought showering was considered 'gay' but more likely an excuse used to cover up for the potential embarrassment communal showering might cause.
As a father I was (and still am) interested in education generally and like to see what other schools offer in terms of opportunities and facilities as modern schools and their curriculum's are totally different to what I 'enjoyed' as a boy.
I did some quick research to see if showering at school was still mandatory and found that generally it wasn't.
While typing in appropriate keywords into Google I came across Topix and have since remembered and shared my own experiences both in and outside of education on various Topix forums.

Your turn, Zuiko/Sir Arthur.
Tell us why you are on Topix?
What's your interest in nude boy swimming showering threads?
Perhaps Coyote can answer that one too?
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#160 Apr 6, 2013
Zuiko: they have conceded defeat and poor little pill will now be riding his 2 wheeler w/trainers around the park following his boy-toy Large. The moose are tearing the bananas off the trees in my back yard so gonna take my AK47 and redirect them. Gee- moose are "almost" as dumb as "Molly & Polly &Philly and Flo !" Take care, let the Pres. of Dartmouth know about MM the imposter on your golf trip to Augusta next week. You may run into bob there at the Butler Cabin- I hear he and Tiger's ex are have a suite in the area. The rhetorical same 'ol same 'ol bleats from the flock of pedos(flock of 3) is soooo boring I could watch 25 re runs of how to cook burgers in a frying pan and find it more exciting & informative.

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 Still a Load of Crap (Nov '12) 8 hr Bob 26
MaltaMon a Pathetic Loser? (Sep '12) 8 hr Bob 24
MaltaMon Dead in the Water (May '13) 8 hr Bob 45
MaltaMon a Load of Crap (Nov '12) 8 hr Bob 308
MaltaMon a Big Fat Zero (Aug '13) 8 hr Bob 38
How cute do you find the yellow cat in the vide... (Sep '13) 8 hr Bob 13
MaltaMon Outed Again! (Sep '12) 8 hr Bob 8
More from around the web