Bob

Montréal, Canada

#86 Jul 17, 2013
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Never mind what you post? Lol. Now there's an idea! Problem solved. Lol. You have no shame, Pedo Baby. None
I have no shame?

Sorry, but what I don't have is an accuser. Your son does not exist. Your non-existent son was never raped.
No son, no rape, no accuser.

And once again, I spit in the face of MaltaMon:

Hwwok! Thppt! Splat!

Hahahahahahaha!
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#87 Jul 17, 2013
More recent "normal discussion" from that (chuckle) "normal, heterosexual, jet-setting, Berkshire-Hatheway billionaire playboy philanthopist", Zwacko:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#27 Feb 22, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
People who speak in absolutes is a sign of ignorance. Saying that something NEVER happened without doing any research is ostrich denialism.
There is documented evidence that it was no big deal for boys swimming classes to have female instructors.
Also plenty of evidence that boys, and sometimes even men, regularly swam nude in public places in the presence of clothed or swimsuited women and girls up to the early and mid 20th century.
I will post a link to such a documented site in my next post.
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#88 Jul 17, 2013
Here is Zuiko posting a link to child pornography (disguised as "historical evidence", as so many child porn sites are these days, along with a completely phony "Google" disclaimer... Imagine Google telling people that by visiting the site, they agree that it ISN'T child pornography. As if anyone who hasn't seen the site yet could possible agree to what it is or isn't... As if that would mean anything to authorities in the real world) This is sick stuff:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#31 Feb 22, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Here is the documented historical evidence. Other pages on the same site show actual original photos from magazines and reputable photographers of that era showing boys swimming nude in public places like parks and beaches.

https://sites.google.com/site/historicarchive ...
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#89 Jul 17, 2013
Why would any "normal", "heterosexual", middle-aged man even think of posting this stuff? What would be his motivation to post a link to photos of young boys who are completely nude? Also, check out the "stories" section and see if that conforms to serious "history" or smut. Here it is again:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#31 Feb 22, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Here is the documented historical evidence. Other pages on the same site show actual original photos from magazines and reputable photographers of that era showing boys swimming nude in public places like parks and beaches.

https://sites.google.com/site/historicarchive ...
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#90 Jul 17, 2013
"Publicly accessible"? Of course they are! How else would child pornography ever be distributed to the sick child fetishists and middle-aged pederasts if it weren't "publicly accessible"? Lol.

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#33 Feb 22, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
That site is merely an excuse for photos of child pornography, hidden as documentation.
I knew that you would say that to escape the documented facts.
I also don't see any pornography in it. They are all publicly accessible historical documents and photos.
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#91 Jul 17, 2013
Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#40 Feb 22, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Katie Mellish wrote:
<quoted text>Fck me, and your not!
He is too stupid to realize it. Nothing but stupid posts from him, not even worth answering.

(Of course, he always does. He never fails to react. He can't help himself. He cannot contain his defensive rage over having been outed by his own words)
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#92 Jul 17, 2013
"Proof" Lol. From a kiddie porn site:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#60 Feb 23, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
More proof that there were many female lifeguards and instructers teaching boys nude swimming classes at the time.

"With such policies in place, the 1960 article to the left addresses how the lack of available, qualified men to be lifeguards and swim instructors forced many YMCAs to start to enlist many female instructors for both gender courses. This particular YMCA had 20 female instructors and lifeguards. In the photo on the top right, Celia Rohar instructs a young John Evans on swimming technique.

This article in addition to the Reno and Kansas City articles above and below, respectively, clearly evidence that they YMCA employed female instructors to teach swim courses to the boys during this period."
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#93 Jul 17, 2013
"Authentcated". Lol. Authenticated by whom? Just say it, Zuiko, and it becomes he truth, eh?

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#61 Feb 23, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
There are several other authenticted articles all on the same page which show how common it was for females to be present during boys nude swimming classes. And you say you don't see them?
Some of them even describe boys nude swim meets in front of parents and other spectators, among them in New York. All taken from newspaper articles of the time.
Bob

Montréal, Canada

#94 Jul 17, 2013
Hey MaltaMon! Here's a 'graphic description of boy-rape' for you.

Picture your son. He's now an adult, and he's in the locker room at McGill after having played soccer. He is lying nude on his back, and I approach him and stand over his body.
I drop my pants, and bend closer. As my hips approach your son's mouth, he slowly starts to open his mouth. As my hips move closer, he opens his mouth wider. And then, crrrapp!! I defecate right in his mouth! Just like I defecate on your head every post, MaltaMon!

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Moron.

(mange la marde, too)
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#95 Jul 17, 2013
Au contraire, mon frere. By today's standards, if not by those of the time at which the photos were taken, they ARE child pornography. Our laws are more enlightened these days: they take into account the privacy of children and the existence of seedy, sordid adults such as you who regard children as objects of their twisted sexual desires.

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#62 Feb 23, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
You are also wrong to say that the historic photos on the same site are today considered as pornography. There is nothing pornographic about them, they just show proof that it was common for males to swim nude, even in public places, during and up to that time.
But then denialists would find any excuse to refute the facts.
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#96 Jul 17, 2013
But he simply wouldn't abandon his defense of these photos of boys who are completely nude. One has to wonder why this sort of thing, his desire to post photos of completely nude male children and his self-stated right to do so--would be so important to a middle aged heterosexual man. And why anyone's challenge based upon US law would elicit such obvious anger from him. Clearly, it is more important to him to be able to maintain his access to images of naked young boys and to continue to believe that he has a right to post them than it is to respect children and the law:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#109 Feb 23, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
MaltaMon wrote:
It is now considered criminal to photograph your own children in the nude after early infancy.(Even then, some states have statutes prohibiting it) Your own kids, mind you. So the photos you see posted on the site to which SixtySomething directed our attention--those depicting naked boys--are pornographic and illegal. ZuikyLeaks, although I understand that you were attempting to make your point, you probably shouldn't post any link to photos like that any longer. Not sure if you knew that they were illegal in most places from which the postings to these threads originate. The Topix site itself is based in the US. Seriously. Ciao.

Zuiko wrote:

MM, none of those photos are pornographic or illegal. As far as I can tell they all appeared in mainstream magazines, and even in family magazines like Time and others. They are neither considered as illegal today because they can be found on respectable sites as historic content. Proof of this is that site is a Google sponsored site, as you can see from its address, and I assure you that Google should know what is legal or not a lot more than you or I.
I kmew that this ignorant, narrow minded, argument would come up, especially by ignorant people like LL, which is why I only linked the page showing the newspaper and written articles of the time. There are other pages on the same site with contemporary photos of the time showing boys swimming nude in public places and beaches, and also historic public videos, even in NY harbour and central park, to show how common and acceptable this practice of male nude swimming in public was. One should take this as historic evidence, and not as pornography because there is none in it. Only dirty minded, deranged, lunatic and ignorant people would consider it as pornography.
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#97 Jul 17, 2013
I tried to reason with him. I tried to be civil. But his access to photos of completely naked boys was too important to Zuiko. Note his seething rage over the issue. Why is Zuiko so angry? Let's have a look:

MaltaMon
Chadds Ford, PA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#112 Feb 23, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
MM, none of those photos are pornographic or illegal. As far as I can tell they all appeared in mainstream magazines, and even in family magazines like Time and others. They are neither considered as illegal today because they can be found on respectable sites as historic content. Proof of this is that site is a Google sponsored site, as you can see from its address, and I assure you that Google should know what is legal or not a lot more than you or I.I
I kmew that this ignorant, narrow minded, argument would come up, especially by ignorant people like LL, which is why I only linked the page showing the newspaper and written articles of the time. There are other pages on the same site with contemporary photos of the time showing boys swimming nude in public places and beaches, and also historic public videos, even in NY harbour and central park, to show how common and acceptable this practice of male nude swimming in public was. One should take this as historic evidence, and not as pornography because there is none in it. Only dirty minded, deranged, lunatic and ignorant people would consider it as pornography.

MaltaMon wrote:

I meant that they have become pornographic under the law. Thry were not considered porn a graphic back when they were published in those mainstream journals periodicals andand newspapers. Indeed, Life Magazine is among them. But today, it is illegal to take photographs of naked minors, to Photoshop pictures of naked minors, to publish photographs of naked minors, or otherwise to disseminate photographs of naked minors. These very strict statutes are virtually universal throughout North America. They are in response to greater awareness of child sex crimes.And they deal with the internet as well. Bsck when those photographs were published, they were not considered criminal but they are today.
MaltaMon

Ephrata, PA

#98 Jul 17, 2013
Obviously, Zuiko refuses to accept the fact that in 2013, images of children who are nude ARE sexual under the law. Imagine the standard that he suggests here: You can take all the photos you want of naked children and distribute them on line and elsewhere as long as they're not performing any sexual acts with an adult or with one another. You can make children strip of their clothing to pose for your camera and be photographed as long as no overt sexual acts are depicted in the photos. That's very sick, Zwacko!

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#120 Feb 24, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Both films were made before the statutes regarding child pornography were enacted in response to the explosion in attention devoted to child sexual abuse, as well as the widespread use of digital imaging to diseminate the pornographic photos on the internet. Sorry, but your examples are out of date (Renfro would be in his thirties, and Jodi Foster is now fifty). However, the commercial film industry is not regulated as strictly with regard to nudity. They ars permitted to depict an underaged character in the nude, as long as the actor playing him or her is not a minor. Nevertheless, you will no longer see an American film made with any naked actors who are under 18.

Zuiko wrote:

You are confusing two totally different situations. It may be illegal today to take nude photos of underage persons and put them on the internet, but pictures and movies of the past which have underage nudity in them are still perfectly legal. In fact you can find such movies for sale on mainstream sites, and also many of them are even on Youtube as perfectly legal.
It is the same for the photos on the site I linked, in fact many of those photos can be found on the Library of Congress site and other respectable sites. So you are wrong in claiming that they are illegal today.
You are also confusing nudity with pornography. A picture is pornographic if it depicts sexual acts, which does not apply to non-sexual nudity.
MaltaMon

Reading, PA

#99 Jul 17, 2013
Bob wrote:
Hey MaltaMon! Here's a 'graphic description of boy-rape' for you.
Picture your son. He's now an adult, and he's in the locker room at McGill after having played soccer. He is lying nude on his back, and I approach him and stand over his body.
I drop my pants, and bend closer. As my hips approach your son's mouth, he slowly starts to open his mouth. As my hips move closer, he opens his mouth wider. And then, crrrapp!! I defecate right in his mouth! Just like I defecate on your head every post, MaltaMon!
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Moron.
(mange la marde, too)
Well, well. Interesting stuff. You STILL have a sexual attraction to my son, I see. I can see why, even though he's now well beyond the age of the boys that you prefer. At nearly 22, he's an enormously good-looking, athletic young man, and still rather boyish.=And now defecation? Does this mean that you're graduating from pederasty to homosexual coprophilia with very young adult males? Another published entry by Bob for the file.
MaltaMon

Phillipsburg, NJ

#100 Jul 17, 2013
Here we have Zuiko lashing out at me because I keep insisting that the nude-boy site to which he'd posted a link is pornographic. When he's defeated, he gets very nasty. His critics, he claims, are the REAL perverts. "Pedophile fantasies?" I never posted any, and he knows that. If I had, he'd have posted them. But to Zwacko, the truth doesn't matter. Criticize his own words and actions, call them what they are, and that's the tack he takes when he cannot defend his obvious interest in naked boys. Let's have a look:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#265 Mar 21, 2013
Mollymon, you do not impress anyone with your pedophile-gay fsntasies and projections. In fact they reinforce everyone's opinion that you are a pervert.
And we are still waiting for a shred of proof about your long list of descriptions of me. This is obviously the result of a sick mind with delirious illusions.
But we do have the evidence and PROOF that you are a condoner of young girl rape, which you never denied.
So rant on, all the evidence is against you.
MaltaMon

Phillipsburg, NJ

#101 Jul 17, 2013
My direct reply to Zuiko's above post:

MaltaMonI
West Grove, PA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#266 Mar 21, 2013
"Proof"? Your own postings prove 1) that you are a homosexual, albeit one who has denied it feverishly after outing yourself, 2) that you collect, enjoy and distribute child pornography, despite your fevered, frightened denials that the material you distributed to us all, photos of naked young boys, is the illegal child pornography that it clearly is, and 3) that you regatd ad "funny" graphic scenarios of the brutal, violent rape of young boys by Pedo Bob . Only a perverted, sexually dysfunctional, and fundamentally evil and sordid sociopath could possibly find humor on the depictions of child rape or regard those photos of naked young boys as appropriate for a middle-aged man to download onto his hard drive and to distribute to strangers on an educational chat line forum. All your projectioning of your illness and despicable words, actions, attitudes and life's work onto me or anyone else is classocly symptomatic of an individual with a recless disregard for facts, for yhe truth, and for your child victims. A man without a conscience whose response to child-rape scenarios is laughyer, who therefore condones such sexial violence perpetrated upon innocent kids. A sociopath. A sexual predator. You will spend time oncarcerated eventually. Nowadays, your kind won't get away with it. And you will realize that your greatest self-incriminating errors were your own postings on rhis now-scrutinized forum. Good riddance to you when your chickens come home to roost.
MaltaMon

Phillipsburg, NJ

#102 Jul 17, 2013
And now, Zuiko takes it up a notch. Now he's in "a court of law". Lol. As if he knows what he's talking about. But it shows what the combination of rage and accute embarrassment can do:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,275

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#269 Mar 21, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
MaltaMonI wrote:
"Proof"? Your own postings prove 1) that you are a homosexual, albeit one who has denied it feverishly after outing yourself, 2) that you collect, enjoy and distribute child pornography, despite your fevered, frightened denials that the material you distributed to us all, photos of naked young boys, is the illegal child pornography that it clearly is, and 3) that you regatd ad "funny" graphic scenarios of the brutal, violent rape of young boys by Pedo Bob . Only a perverted, sexually dysfunctional, and fundamentally evil and sordid sociopath could possibly find humor on the depictions of child rape or regard those photos of naked young boys as appropriate for a middle-aged man to download onto his hard drive and to distribute to strangers on an educational chat line forum. All your projectioning of your illness and despicable words, actions, attitudes and life's work onto me or anyone else is classocly symptomatic of an individual with a recless disregard for facts, for yhe truth, and for your child victims. A man without a conscience whose response to child-rape scenarios is laughyer, who therefore condones such sexial violence perpetrated upon innocent kids. A sociopath. A sexual predator. You will spend time oncarcerated eventually. Nowadays, your kind won't get away with it. And you will realize that your greatest self-incriminating errors were your own postings on rhis now-scrutinized forum. Good riddance to you when your chickens come home to roost.

Zuiko wrote:

Bla bla bla...Show us the proof of your hallucinatons and lies about me. In a court of law you will lose every case, and be indicted for false evidence and infamy. The only clear thing that is self-incriminating is your approval and condonement of young girl rape, the false reports of a raped son and false claims that a named poster here has raped your son. All of which carry a prison sentence as serious crimes. So I do hope that this forum is being scrutinized, as you say. On my part I have done nothing illegal. Now go and hide somewhere, you perverted liar.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#103 Jul 17, 2013
Molly, I don't know what you are trying to prove with those posts about the history of nude swimming, which the topic was about. You are the only moron who has claimed that the google site I have linked which you refer to is in any way illegal or pornographic. The only thing you have proven is that you are an idiot and a retard.
Bob is also right in saying that you never answer accusations against yourself, but just stay silent or try to deflect. Like why you never condemn your buddy Large for posting pornographic child abuse posts. Like when you kept saying that boys who do not want to be seen naked by other males must have psychological problems. Like when you said that people should be allowed to take photos of nude children. This all contradicts what you are trying vainly to accuse others of. You can go on searching and sifting for my posts all day as you do, but your obsession with me only amuses me, and only proves what a retard you are, as most posters here seem to agree. Now go take your meds before you go into another fit, you depraved pervert.
MaltaMon

Phillipsburg, NJ

#104 Jul 17, 2013
Zuiko seems to acknowledge that the photos of naked young boys to which he'd posted the link are not legal, so he creates a technicality to claim innocence of the illegality that he's committed. He claims NOT to have 'put the photos there'. What he fails to realize is that he's distributed them online, which is illegal. At least in my country it is, if not in his:

Zuiko

Since: Jan 13

1,276

Location hidden
Please wait... Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#312 Mar 30, 2013
Judged:
1
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> By posting the link to a website that contains photos of naked children, he posted child pornography. It's illegal in most states of the US and in Canada. Moreover, he misrepresented it as evidence in the discussion about required nude swimming for boys . The evidence is in the text of the news articles--not in photos of naked boys in the shower, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. It may be available to any adult online, as is most child pornography. The criminal acts are accessing it with his computer and distributing it to us by posting a link to it, which is the same as posting the actual photographs, which you cannot physically do, on this forum. The link is the only way to distribute the photos here, and that is what Zuiko has done.

Zuiko wrote:

Lol... Where is the illegality that you speak of? I posted the link and pointed you to the articles, I didn't put the photos there. But this is what one would expect from a dishonest projectionist like you.
MaltaMon

Phillipsburg, NJ

#105 Jul 17, 2013
My take (at the time) on what Zuiko and The Fab Three (Gay Tenors) had done:

MaltaMon
Philadelphia, PA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#316 Mar 31, 2013
Judged:
1
1
1
Most paedophiles are far more discreet than Zuiko has been in spreading the word to fellow child-porn enthusiasts about these sited that feature child pornography. They don't post links to them on a web site that is one of the world's most frequently accessed for legitimate news, information, and discussion. The other paedophiles and child-porn fanatics on here, while defending Zuiko's site with blatant disingenuousness as NOT pornographic, must have cringed and perhaps wished he'd disappear when he posted that to a more mainstream audience and thereby revealed their dirty little secret.

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
Trial ordered in Philly school cheating probe 2 hr hyle 26
Home-schooling parents relieved over passage of... (Mar '14) 19 hr Brenda Stiles 2
Sandy Hook commission calls for tighter regulat... 19 hr Brenda Stiles 2
Less reading material means fewer readers Mon abigail22 1
1Z0-053 practice exam & 1Z0-053 question and an... Mon oacllceo 1
1Z0-052 practice exam & 1Z0-052 question and an... Mon oacllceo 1
70-463 practice exam & 70-463 question and answers Mon oacllceo 1

Education People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE