Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1929 Apr 6, 2013
Time to uncover some of Maltamon's and Phil's hypocricy and idiocy.
Here is where MM is saying that boys who do not allow other males to see them naked in locker rooms suffer from phobia and become dysfunctional. He says this and similar in many of his posts on this thread, as one can see. Which clearly show his pedo-gay beliefs.

After making a scene on seeing a photo of boys showering on a google site, and calling it pornography, here is what he is saying on the same page, calling it "preposterous" not to allow parents to take photos of naked children:
"We've already reached the preposterous milestone at which naked photographs of our own infants and toddlers is regarded as child pornography."

Notice also everyone, including MM, attacking Phil for his other extreme views about the subject.
http://www.topix.com/forum/education/TV5C3Q72...
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1930 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
Time to uncover some of Maltamon's and Phil's hypocricy and idiocy.
Here is where MM is saying that boys who do not allow other males to see them naked in locker rooms suffer from phobia and become dysfunctional. He says this and similar in many of his posts on this thread, as one can see. Which clearly show his pedo-gay beliefs.
After making a scene on seeing a photo of boys showering on a google site, and calling it pornography, here is what he is saying on the same page, calling it "preposterous" not to allow parents to take photos of naked children:
"We've already reached the preposterous milestone at which naked photographs of our own infants and toddlers is regarded as child pornography."
Notice also everyone, including MM, attacking Phil for his other extreme views about the subject.
http://www.topix.com/forum/education/TV5C3Q72...
What extreme views?
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1931 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
Time to uncover some of Maltamon's and Phil's hypocricy and idiocy.
Here is where MM is saying that boys who do not allow other males to see them naked in locker rooms suffer from phobia and become dysfunctional. He says this and similar in many of his posts on this thread, as one can see. Which clearly show his pedo-gay beliefs.
After making a scene on seeing a photo of boys showering on a google site, and calling it pornography, here is what he is saying on the same page, calling it "preposterous" not to allow parents to take photos of naked children:
"We've already reached the preposterous milestone at which naked photographs of our own infants and toddlers is regarded as child pornography."
Notice also everyone, including MM, attacking Phil for his other extreme views about the subject.
http://www.topix.com/forum/education/TV5C3Q72...
You would prefer it if clothed girls or women were allowed to be in the boy's locker room.
As regards photos of our own children I made a similar comment abiut the ridiculous situation where a famous UK newsreader was arrested for taking a 'souvenier' photo of her very young child or children in the bath. Many parents take such photos quite innocently but the child protection squad can go a bit OTT.
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#1932 Apr 7, 2013
"Pedo-Gay beliefs"? Lol. You will say absolutely anything in the belief that it will divert attention from your own self-incriminating postings, including those of photographs of stark-naked young boys, of your demands that all "boys to their teens" be forced to strip and swim completely nude, even with clothed female peers and adults present, because boys "look better nude" than they do in bathing suits, in which they "look silly" And your postings claiming that the brutal anal rape of innocent boys, as recounted so vividly ,(and so often) by Bob of Dorval, is "funny". I wonder why you posted all those despicable, depraved statements, showed us part of your child-porn collection, and now accuse your accusers of the "pedo-gay beliefs" that, according to your own posts, comprise the single most manifest element of your character and identity. Indeed, why did you post the photos and all those statements which outed you as a homosexual paedophile?
MaltaMon

Oaklyn, NJ

#1933 Apr 7, 2013
Obviously, that last statement of mine was directed to the "fellow" who now goes by the alias of "Zuiko"--NOT to Phil or anyone else .

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1934 Apr 7, 2013
Phil, you say that you are not obsessed with this subject of boys swimming nude, yet just look at this topic alone about the subject, which is full of your posts continuously throughout.
You even posted multiple links about boys swimming naked in schools, as here:

Phil
Manchester, UK
|#410
Dec 1, 2012 :

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/education/s ...
"It had last been featured in London tabloids in 1992, when a television documentary showed teachers and pupils swimming naked together"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/01/ofst ...
"....and, weather permitting, staff and students can sunbathe in the nude"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_Schoo ...
"School meetings are held three times a week, where

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1935 Apr 7, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
As regards photos of our own children I made a similar comment abiut the ridiculous situation where a famous UK newsreader was arrested for taking a 'souvenier' photo of her very young child or children in the bath. Many parents take such photos quite innocently but the child protection squad can go a bit OTT.
So you are in favour of people taking naked photos of their children, as does MM. It is these type of photos that end up on the internet to feed pedophiles like you. Your hypocricy is really crass.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1936 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are in favour of people taking naked photos of their children, as does MM. It is these type of photos that end up on the internet to feed pedophiles like you. Your hypocricy is really crass.
Within reason, yes.
I have a photo of me and my eldest son in the bath together when he was very young, probably less than a year old.
He was sat in the bath covered with water up to his waist.
Perfectly normal.
Nothing to be embarrassed about.
Parents do things like that.
Only the immediate family saw that photo.
Such photos don't appear on the net by accident.

Before you ask, as you and I know you get turned on by such things, no females were in the bathroom.
Sorry to disappoint you.

Are you married?
Do you have children?
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1937 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
Phil, you say that you are not obsessed with this subject of boys swimming nude, yet just look at this topic alone about the subject, which is full of your posts continuously throughout.
You even posted multiple links about boys swimming naked in schools, as here:
Phil
Manchester, UK
|#410
Dec 1, 2012 :
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/education/s ...
"It had last been featured in London tabloids in 1992, when a television documentary showed teachers and pupils swimming naked together"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/01/ofst ...
"....and, weather permitting, staff and students can sunbathe in the nude"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_Schoo ...
"School meetings are held three times a week, where
Your links don't work but you will have to try harder than that.

From memory, and I could be wrong my comments were in response to someone who mentioned Summerhill school, a radical educational establishment in the UK.
No doubt someone posted about what went on there, the nude coed swimming, amongst other things and someone else probably denied it happened, as they do on Topix so I more than likely pointed out that it did with links to legitimate articles published by respectable organisations, not some thrown together webpage like yours.
The links did not contain photos of naked boys in the shower, unlike yours.

As regards 'multiple links' I may also have mentioned in response to another's post that there was a school in Manchester that had a 'no swimwear' policy up to the mid 1970's.
I am guessing, although again I could be wrong that someone denied it ever happened in the UK and I knew it did.
I knew because two brothers in my street went there.
It was a boys only school with no female staff so there was no chance of any girls or women seeing the boys so don't bother asking your usual Sir Arthur questions.

You can't embarrass me so don't even try, you sad, inadequate prick.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1938 Apr 7, 2013
This topic about boys swimming mude has been going on since Septembar last year, 7 whole months, and one can see that Phil has posted on it continuously from the very beginning, in fact he is one of the most prolific posters on it, right from page 1, and continuing on nearly every page, same as Maltamon who started it. And both say that they are not obsessed with this subject.
Do you see any of my posts on it, except recently and not even specifically about the subject?
The hypocricy and lies of these two masked pedophiles is incredible.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1939 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
Phil, you say that you are not obsessed with this subject of boys swimming nude, yet just look at this topic alone about the subject, which is full of your posts continuously throughout.
You even posted multiple links about boys swimming naked in schools, as here:
Phil
Manchester, UK
|#410
Dec 1, 2012 :
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/education/s ...
"It had last been featured in London tabloids in 1992, when a television documentary showed teachers and pupils swimming naked together"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/01/ofst ...
"....and, weather permitting, staff and students can sunbathe in the nude"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_Schoo ...
"School meetings are held three times a week, where
"You even posted multiple links about boys swimming naked in schools"

This proves you are either a liar or a moron.
Which is it?
The thing about Summerhill is that the nude swimming was coed.
I know you will not like this but the girls were nude as well, not just the boys.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1940 Apr 7, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Your links don't work but you will have to try harder than that.
From memory, and I could be wrong my comments were in response to someone who mentioned Summerhill school, a radical educational establishment in the UK.
No doubt someone posted about what went on there, the nude coed swimming, amongst other things and someone else probably denied it happened, as they do on Topix so I more than likely pointed out that it did with links to legitimate articles published by respectable organisations, not some thrown together webpage like yours.
The links did not contain photos of naked boys in the shower, unlike yours.
As regards 'multiple links' I may also have mentioned in response to another's post that there was a school in Manchester that had a 'no swimwear' policy up to the mid 1970's.
I am guessing, although again I could be wrong that someone denied it ever happened in the UK and I knew it did.
I knew because two brothers in my street went there.
It was a boys only school with no female staff so there was no chance of any girls or women seeing the boys so don't bother asking your usual Sir Arthur questions.
You can't embarrass me so don't even try, you sad, inadequate prick.
Your weak response as an excuse doesn't convince anyone. The fact is that you posted multiple links about boys swimming naked at school. Even other posters right from page 1 have called you out on your hypocricy and contradictions. Your last offensive sentence here shows that you are angry at being uncovered.
Your first sentence that the links don't work is also a lie and a weak banal excuse. In case you are in doubt you have the number of the post on top, which is on page 18 I think, but I will link it directly if you want to.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1941 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your weak response as an excuse doesn't convince anyone. The fact is that you posted multiple links about boys swimming naked at school. Even other posters right from page 1 have called you out on your hypocricy and contradictions. Your last offensive sentence here shows that you are angry at being uncovered.
Your first sentence that the links don't work is also a lie and a weak banal excuse. In case you are in doubt you have the number of the post on top, which is on page 18 I think, but I will link it directly if you want to.
Your links didn't work.
Either do it properly or ask a grown up to do it for you.
Then we can see these 'multiple links' you refer to.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1942 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your weak response as an excuse doesn't convince anyone. The fact is that you posted multiple links about boys swimming naked at school. Even other posters right from page 1 have called you out on your hypocricy and contradictions. Your last offensive sentence here shows that you are angry at being uncovered.
Your first sentence that the links don't work is also a lie and a weak banal excuse. In case you are in doubt you have the number of the post on top, which is on page 18 I think, but I will link it directly if you want to.
Your links say 'page not found'.
Try again.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1943 Apr 7, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
"You even posted multiple links about boys swimming naked in schools"
This proves you are either a liar or a moron.
Which is it?
So you deny posting multiple links about boys, and girls, swimming naked in schools, when they are right in front of you for all to see. So who is the liar and moron? You can't hide your continuous and long interest in this subject.
MaltaMon

York, PA

#1944 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your weak response as an excuse doesn't convince anyone. The fact is that you posted multiple links about boys swimming naked at school. Even other posters right from page 1 have called you out on your hypocricy and contradictions. Your last offensive sentence here shows that you are angry at being uncovered.
Your first sentence that the links don't work is also a lie and a weak banal excuse. In case you are in doubt you have the number of the post on top, which is on page 18 I think, but I will link it directly if you want to.
Well, at least he doesn't venture into coyote's territory by copying him. Tinkerbell referred to my "presentation" as "cowardly". Lol. I regret to admit that I had never appreciated how truly brave his "presentation" was.
MaltaMon

York, PA

#1945 Apr 7, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Your links didn't work.
Either do it properly or ask a grown up to do it for you.
Then we can see these 'multiple links' you refer to.
Well, at least you don't seem surprised by Zuiko's failure to do anything honestly, even this.
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1946 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny posting multiple links about boys, and girls, swimming naked in schools, when they are right in front of you for all to see. So who is the liar and moron? You can't hide your continuous and long interest in this subject.
Provide links that work.
I have already told you about the links I posted and the context in which they were posted, from memory which is all I can go on until you provide working links.
What I didn't do is post a link to a shoddy website which featured boys in the shower.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1947 Apr 7, 2013
Phil

Manchester, UK

#1948 Apr 7, 2013
Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
So you deny posting multiple links about boys, and girls, swimming naked in schools, when they are right in front of you for all to see. So who is the liar and moron? You can't hide your continuous and long interest in this subject.
Make your mind up.
You claim I posted multiple links about boys swimming nude in schools and provided broken links to articles I referred to about a school that had coed swimming and then you ask me if I deny posting links about boys and girls swimming.
No.
I just told you that I did.
I referred to articles published by respectable organisations on the subject of a legitimate school in the UK.
What I didn't do was post a link to a website that contained a photo of underage boys in the shower.
You did.

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
TestHorse 70-247 exam - 70-247 practice exam 7 hr a70332exam 1
TestHorse MB6-701 exam - MB6-701 practice exam 8 hr a70332exam 1
TestHorse 70-341 exam - 70-341 practice exam 8 hr Aimeecatcal 1
TestHorse C4040-123 exam - C4040-123 practice exam 8 hr Aimeecatcal 1
Microsoft real exam , Office 365 74-325 real exam 11 hr Aimeecatcal 1
Did You Swim Nude In High School? (Dec '12) 17 hr MaltaMon 1,183
naked school. swimming (Apr '13) Mon Ronald McDonald 141

Education People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE