Wales Assembly Returns The School Sho...
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#965 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from your twisted and inventive rants, I posted both Phil's and your posts to show what a liar and hypocrite you are. You are now defending Phil after you called him "a sexual pervert", "obsessed" with nude boys, accused him of "sexual titillation in his scenarios" and also accused him of posting "child abuse erotica". What do you have to say about all this now? We want an answer, not the usual off-topic evasions.
I "We"? First, explain your own prolific posts as a proponent of required nudity for all "boys to their teens" while swimming in school and elsewhere, even when clothed females ate with them. Then, and only then, will I talk about my posts. And don't use the terms "off-topic" or "evasion", because it is you who are guilty of both. Also, stop presuming to speak for anyone other than yourself. There is no "we".
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#966 Apr 27, 2013
**even when clothed females are with them
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#967 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
I did quote you in context, which is why I included the replies by other posters to your posts.
No one else mentioned "Boy's dangly bits" except you, and even Molly mocked you about that perverse statement.
No one else mentioned Sex education films which featured "explicit sex and children's physical development".
You also posted several links about boys being made to shower in schools.
Not to mention your other multiple links about boys swimming nude in schools on the topic of that name.
These and many others of your posts leave no doubt that you are a pedophile, or to use Molly's own words about you "a sexual pervert".
What is the definition of stupidity?
Making the same mistake twice and expecting a different outcome which is what you, Zuiko have done again.
You posted other's responses to my posts, not my posts, which were in fact personal opinions, not facts, and certainly not evidence of anything other than your stupidity and of the two comments that I can see from me the very first one you quoted out of context.
That alone renders the rest of your post unreliable as evidence and thus completely pointless.
Again, you have proven NOTHING !!
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#968 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from your twisted and inventive rants, I posted both Phil's and your posts to show what a liar and hypocrite you are. You are now defending Phil after you called him "a sexual pervert", "obsessed" with nude boys, accused him of "sexual titillation in his scenarios" and also accused him of posting "child abuse erotica". What do you have to say about all this now? We want an answer, not the usual off-topic evasions.
I'd like some answers.
Why do you need to know who is in a room, apart from the teachers while boys shower?
Why do you need to know if anybody other than teachers are with or who saw boys, and what gender they were, while boys were examined nude?
Why do you need a link to a book about men being examined naked by clothed women?
Why the interest?
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#969 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
Oh please Molly, how can you accuse anyone of anything when it was you who said that it is "preposterous" for the law not to allow people to take nude photos of children? Do you deny it, or do I have to prove that you are a liar and a hypocrite again, just as I have proved Phil?
You know, you lying little queen, that the comment was about a couple in Arizona who'd taken photos of their own daughters wrapped in towels after their bath. They were arrested and their girls removed from their parents and their home for a year, until the girls convinced a judge that there was no nudity or other sexual abuse involved. The arrest and the removal of those children from them for photos of the girls wrapped completely in towels is what I said was preposterous, you lying little boy-loving fa**ot. Post A link to what I said. Go ahead.
coyote

Halifax, Canada

#970 Apr 27, 2013
Phil- on this side of the Atlantic you have described "insanity" - likely a different level of impediment than "stupid"- jest sayin'...
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#971 Apr 27, 2013
coyote wrote:
Phil- on this side of the Atlantic you have described "insanity" - likely a different level of impediment than "stupid"- jest sayin'...
I agree with that description of ZuikiBoyLust
Largelanguage

Wrexham, UK

#972 Apr 27, 2013
The biggest scums on topix are the following in my opinion.

1. Bob.
2. Zuiko.
3. Riverside Redneck.
Phili

Dunfermline, UK

#973 Apr 27, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
The biggest scums on topix are the following in my opinion.
1. Bob.
2. Zuiko.
3. Riverside Redneck.
Large, what were you saying to me earlier about repecting people?
By the way, this is a rhetorical question.
I don't need an answer.
D-J-W

Torquay, UK

#974 Apr 27, 2013
http://www.st-philiphoward.derbyshire.sch.uk/...

How dare schools claim the National Curriculum mandates school showers. Unlike Sweden or Denmark there is no statutory duty upon teachers to enforce showers just the common law doctrine of "loco parentis" but your parents dont force you to parade around nude in front of other boys.

The website says "A towel for showering"

"Physical Education is a National Curriculum subject and all pupils are required to participate in the course. All students are required to shower unless there is a confirmed reason for not doing so".

"As a sports college a high standard of dress for pe is expected as is active participation".

Typical of the Catholic church to engage in Bad Language!
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#975 Apr 27, 2013
D-J-W wrote:
http://www.st-philiphoward.der byshire.sch.uk/data/page17.swf
How dare schools claim the National Curriculum mandates school showers. Unlike Sweden or Denmark there is no statutory duty upon teachers to enforce showers just the common law doctrine of "loco parentis" but your parents dont force you to parade around nude in front of other boys.
The website says "A towel for showering"
"Physical Education is a National Curriculum subject and all pupils are required to participate in the course. All students are required to shower unless there is a confirmed reason for not doing so".
"As a sports college a high standard of dress for pe is expected as is active participation".
Typical of the Catholic church to engage in Bad Language!
Take your fraudulent crusade and insanely hypocritical sanctimony and get the hell off this site. You posted a link to many hundreds of photographs of entirely naked young boys alongside hundreds more of even younger boys, years before the will reach puberty, posed erotically, legs,and buttocks spread for the camera and the sick sociopath behind it. Your words are a transparent attempt to divert attention from your criminal activity. You were reckless to expose your real disposition toward children ( along with the bodies of hundreds of innocent young victims) on this site. You are a child sexual predator, DJW, and are NOT welcome here. Now go, for Christ's sake!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#976 Apr 27, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the definition of stupidity?
Making the same mistake twice and expecting a different outcome which is what you, Zuiko have done again.
You posted other's responses to my posts, not my posts, which were in fact personal opinions, not facts, and certainly not evidence of anything other than your stupidity and of the two comments that I can see from me the very first one you quoted out of context.
That alone renders the rest of your post unreliable as evidence and thus completely pointless.
Again, you have proven NOTHING !!
It is your denialism when faced with the facts of your own words that is stupidity.
What is out of context when mentioning "boy's dangly bits"?
What is out of context when mentioniing Sex Education films for kids with sexual acts in them?
What is out of context when posting multiple links about boys swimming nude and showering nude in both topics?
What is out of context in your continuous OBSESSION with the subject of nude boys? Your continuous posts on every page on those two topics prove this.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#977 Apr 27, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> I "We"? First, explain your own prolific posts as a proponent of required nudity for all "boys to their teens" while swimming in school and elsewhere, even when clothed females ate with them. Then, and only then, will I talk about my posts. And don't use the terms "off-topic" or "evasion", because it is you who are guilty of both. Also, stop presuming to speak for anyone other than yourself. There is no "we".
What you refer to you well know that was a humorous discusssion, as anyone who reads it can tell.
It is no use trying to divert what is being discussed here about your, and pervert Phil's, posts. What you mention here about me has already been discussed a hundred times before and I always gave you the answers. Unlike you I never evaded questions.
What is so difficult in replying to what you posted here about Phil? If you were half a man you would reply instantly without evasion, but you can't because those posts shame both you and Phil, the two biggest perverts on this forum.
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#978 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
What you refer to you well know that was a humorous discusssion, as anyone who reads it can tell.
It is no use trying to divert what is being discussed here about your, and pervert Phil's, posts. What you mention here about me has already been discussed a hundred times before and I always gave you the answers. Unlike you I never evaded questions.
What is so difficult in replying to what you posted here about Phil? If you were half a man you would reply instantly without evasion, but you can't because those posts shame both you and Phil, the two biggest perverts on this forum.
It clearly was a discussion among men who lust,after boys. No obvious humor in it. Indeed, how is that topic at all humorous? Sorry, pal, but I don't get it. So no, I don't "know" that the discussion was intended to elicit laughter. Maybe it's because I have,a kid who was sexually abused and simply am unable to find anything funny about grown men discussing naked schoolchildren.
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#979 Apr 27, 2013
Then again, O would be stunned to learn that any well-adjusted adult, with or without children, gay or straight, would find that discussion "humorous". Sorry, Zuiko.
MaltaMon

Wilmington, DE

#980 Apr 27, 2013
** I (not O)
Phil

Dunfermline, UK

#981 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your denialism when faced with the facts of your own words that is stupidity.
What is out of context when mentioning "boy's dangly bits"?
What is out of context when mentioniing Sex Education films for kids with sexual acts in them?
What is out of context when posting multiple links about boys swimming nude and showering nude in both topics?
What is out of context in your continuous OBSESSION with the subject of nude boys? Your continuous posts on every page on those two topics prove this.
What am I denying?
That you are a moron?
Sorry, when faced with the truth I can't.
None of the above posts you refer to were out of context, a concept you obviously have difficulty with, along with the concept of evidence and the difference between that and (other's) opinions.
I mentioned boy's dangly bits in a joky way, the same way you suggest your comments about boys swimming nude was made, while speaking, in context, about the need to offer protection for boys engaged in sport.
Big deal.

I referred, in context, to a sex education film, the sort all pupils all over the world will have seen at some time in their lives which, being a European production and knowing their more relaxed attitude to censorship was more explicit than the norm and was directed to not only young schoolchildren but teenagers also in an effort to promote safe sex.
Big deal.

You keep throwing out this silly allegation

"...posting multiple links about boys swimming nude and showering nude in both topics"

I posted three links in ONE post, in response to another's post or question, referring to a school mentioned (not originally by me) in the thread where both boys AND girls could swim nude if they wanted to and were not forced to.
I may also have posted a link referring to a boys school that had a 'no suits' swimming policy up to the early 70's, probably in response to someone who denied such things never happened.
I knew as two brothers in my neighbourhood attended this school.
So what?

Any posts disagreeing with my views are just that, a difference of opinion.

If you read my posts, in context, you would see I was consistently very much pro-choice when it came to school showers which attracted a lot of criticism and also very anti-nude swimming.

I never asked who, apart from the teacher was in the locker room while boys showered, nor did I ask who else may have seen the boys nude.
Neither did I ask who saw the boys while they were medically examined, hoping desperately as you were that someone would tell you that it was a woman because boys being embarrassed while naked turns you on. That much is not in dispute.
At no time did I post a link to a poor quality website showing images of boys in a shower and I certainly didn't as for someone to send me a link to a book about men being examined nude by clothed women.
You and I remember the very detailed and explicit questions you used to ask as Sir Arthur when nude boys were mentioned and the prospect of others seeing the boys in that state clearly excited you.
The pattern, the theme of your fetish is clear to a blind man.
You can't embarrass me.
Don't waste your otherwise empty life trying.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#982 Apr 27, 2013
More links from Phil showing nudity under the guise of sex education films for kids.
Post 643
I am getting confused.
The TV programme with the teenage schoolchildren involved was not called "Embarrassing Bodies" but "The Sex Education Show" so in actual fact I didn't mention "Embarrassing Bodies".
I am not sure if the link will work outside the UK
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-sex-ed ...
And we also had this one
http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/topics/body -
confidence
Phili

Dunfermline, UK

#983 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
More links from Phil showing nudity under the guise of sex education films for kids.
Post 643
I am getting confused.
The TV programme with the teenage schoolchildren involved was not called "Embarrassing Bodies" but "The Sex Education Show" so in actual fact I didn't mention "Embarrassing Bodies".
I am not sure if the link will work outside the UK
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-sex-ed ...
And we also had this one
http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/topics/body -
confidence
Zuiko, have you watched those TV programmes?
If so perhaps you can enlighten us on the subject matter?
There is a risk that you are going to make yourself look extremely stupid but then again, what's new?
Phili

Dunfermline, UK

#984 Apr 27, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
More links from Phil showing nudity under the guise of sex education films for kids.
Post 643
I am getting confused.
The TV programme with the teenage schoolchildren involved was not called "Embarrassing Bodies" but "The Sex Education Show" so in actual fact I didn't mention "Embarrassing Bodies".
I am not sure if the link will work outside the UK
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-soex-e... ...
And we also had this one
http://sexperienceuk.channel4.com/topics/body -
confidence
If memory serves me well I said that such programmes should be compulsory viewing for children of a certain age.

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
SNIA SCSP S10-110 exam latest dumps 1 hr exam questions 1
ExamUnion S10-110 exam SNIA SCSP real exam ques... 1 hr MB2-710 exam 1
ExamUnion Dynamics CRM 2016 Online Deployment M... 1 hr MB2-710 exam 1
SAP HANA certification C_HANAIMP_11 questions 2 hr freetestexam 2
Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 70-345 practice ... 2 hr freetestexam 2
ExamUnion CCNA V3.0 200-125 exam questions mate... 3 hr 200-125 questions 1
Latest Microsoft MB2-710 preparation material 5 hr preparation material 1
More from around the web