Comments
1,881 - 1,900 of 2,220 Comments Last updated Feb 25, 2014
Childe Harold

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2033
May 15, 2013
 
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
But having photos of naked boys showering would have never been tolerated.
And yet, there's that cover of Life magazine, circa 1940, that shows a whole shower room full of naked boys.
LineDazzle

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2034
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Childe Harold wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, there's that cover of Life magazine, circa 1940, that shows a whole shower room full of naked boys.
That life magazine never existed. It is made up. If there was changes, it would be in the papers, WELL KNOWN AMONG MANY, and have congregational history.
Phil

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2035
May 15, 2013
 
LineDazzle wrote:
<quoted text>
That life magazine never existed. It is made up. If there was changes, it would be in the papers, WELL KNOWN AMONG MANY, and have congregational history.
Can anybody translate this garbage into English?
MaltaMon

Pottstown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2036
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What matters is that photo, according to the statutes and standards of 2013, is child pornography. It matters not what the law said seventy-three years ago if that law has long since been superseded by more restrictive statutes. The fact is that today, a photo of naked boys gathered in a gang shower in what appears to be a middle-school setting--but it doesn't matter where it is taken--is pornographic. If there was justification for publishing it (allegedly) in Life Magazine in 1940, there is no defense for posting it on a public forum in 2013. The boys clearly are underage.
MaltaMon

Pottstown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2037
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

The naked boys in that photo are children.
LineDazzle

Chester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2038
May 15, 2013
 
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
Can anybody translate this garbage into English?
Why patronize?

Answer what I say, follow me through, boy.
Now my apprentice, let me tell you to say why you think I am a pedophile!

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2039
May 15, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
What matters is that photo, according to the statutes and standards of 2013, is child pornography. It matters not what the law said seventy-three years ago if that law has long since been superseded by more restrictive statutes. The fact is that today, a photo of naked boys gathered in a gang shower in what appears to be a middle-school setting--but it doesn't matter where it is taken--is pornographic. If there was justification for publishing it (allegedly) in Life Magazine in 1940, there is no defense for posting it on a public forum in 2013. The boys clearly are underage.
Keep making a fool of yourself by posting silly statements. If that photo constituted anything close to child pornography Google would have long closed it down.
MaltaMon

Collegeville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2040
May 15, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Zuiko wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep making a fool of yourself by posting silly statements. If that photo constituted anything close to child pornography Google would have long closed it down.
Don't be silly, you pedophile freak. The kiddie-porn-obsessed guys who were arrested in NJ used Google to access most of the child pornography they'd viewed on line. Google doesn't police the internet. They'll go after that site, maybe, and render it inaccessible via Google if a number of child-porn enthusiasts who've accessed that site are convicted. Maybe then. You're a fu**cking idiot,,Zwacko!. And you keep defending your posting of that depraved photo of naked 12 y/o boys. But everyone knows that the photo turns you on sexually. As do others like it. Boys are your thing.
LineDazzle

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2041
May 16, 2013
 
And Zuiko is a liar.
MaltaMon

Oxford, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2042
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

He's a terrible liar at that. Accuse him of something, and he replies by accusing his accuser of actually having done what he's been accused of. Lol.. So childish. "I know you are, but what am I?" And he denies what is easily provable. Case in point: his posting of a thread to a child-pornography site within two weeks of his first appearance as Zwacko. Case in point: Admitting, even boasting, that he used to post as Sir Arthur--the same Sir Arthur who posted in 2011 that "boys to their teens" should be forced to swim totally NUDE, even when clothed girls swim among them and when other clothed women are present, because boys "look silly in bathing suits". Case in point: he denies he's a homosexual after posting, also within weeks of his debut as Zwacko, that teenaged girls shouldn't swim nude as boys should because they need their bathing suits to "hold in their tampons". Obviously, the only straight male who would believe that would be a male who has never played with a female sexually--who is totally unaware of the existence of the cervix. At his age, no male would be so inexperienced sexually unless he were a life-long celibate. And yet he claims to be a wealthy jet-setting playboy..lol..who just happens to be unfamiliar with the very basics of the female anatomy and feels that "boys to their teens" look better completely nude, even in a coeducational setting, than they do in swim wear. "Liar" doesn't quite cover (pardon the pun) Zwacko's persona on these threads. Oh, and he insists that Pedo Bob's tales of boy rape are "funny". The guy's a goblin.
LineDazzle

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2043
May 16, 2013
 
Zuiko is ignorant anyway. Why do you assume he is at least 60?
Bob

Montréal, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2044
May 16, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
What matters is that photo, according to the statutes and standards of 2013, is child pornography. It matters not what the law said seventy-three years ago if that law has long since been superseded by more restrictive statutes. The fact is that today, a photo of naked boys gathered in a gang shower in what appears to be a middle-school setting--but it doesn't matter where it is taken--is pornographic. If there was justification for publishing it (allegedly) in Life Magazine in 1940, there is no defense for posting it on a public forum in 2013. The boys clearly are underage.
A photo of naked boys in a shower circa 1940 is just that: a photo of a normal, healthy situation.
Only someone who considers such a situation to be sexual would consider it to be child pornography. Obviously, MaltaMolester thinks it a sexual situation, thus revealing him to be a pedophile.
LineDazzle

Wrexham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2045
May 16, 2013
 
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
A photo of naked boys in a shower circa 1940 is just that: a photo of a normal, healthy situation.
Only someone who considers such a situation to be sexual would consider it to be child pornography. Obviously, MaltaMolester thinks it a sexual situation, thus revealing him to be a pedophile.
There is nothing wrong with the situation itself, you idiot!
But taking images of boys while they are naked is completely wrong on all fronts!
MaltaMon

Oxford, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2046
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
A photo of naked boys in a shower circa 1940 is just that: a photo of a normal, healthy situation.
Only someone who considers such a situation to be sexual would consider it to be child pornography. Obviously, MaltaMolester thinks it a sexual situation, thus revealing him to be a pedophile.
No again, Pedo Bob. It is illegal in 2013 even to view these photos wilfully, to search for and to access the sites that feature them. That I have helped police in IA, MD, PA and NJ to identify those who frequent these sites online, which have led to their arrests, belies your idiotic, entirely self-serving charge. I know the law, and I can spot you child-porn enthusiasts a mile away. Freak.
Bob

Montréal, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2047
May 16, 2013
 
You have helped police in IA, MD, PA and NJ to arrest pedophiles? What are those initials? American states or the names of planets on some distant solar system?
Don't make me laugh. You've been threatening me with your garbage for over a year and I'm still here.

On second thought, make me laugh!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha haha!!!!!!
MaltaMon

Oxford, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2048
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Those, as you recognize, are abbreviations for the names of four states. Why ask about them when you say yourself that you know what they are? What's your dumb-bastard point? Freak.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2049
May 16, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> Don't be silly, you pedophile freak. The kiddie-porn-obsessed guys who were arrested in NJ used Google to access most of the child pornography they'd viewed on line. Google doesn't police the internet. They'll go after that site, maybe, and render it inaccessible via Google if a number of child-porn enthusiasts who've accessed that site are convicted. Maybe then. You're a fu**cking idiot,,Zwacko!. And you keep defending your posting of that depraved photo of naked 12 y/o boys. But everyone knows that the photo turns you on sexually. As do others like it. Boys are your thing.
Keep making an idiot of yourself. That link is a google sponsored site, and only you see it as pornography in your dirty head. Also the link is not about a historic photo but about documents concerning the history of nude swimming. So your venom spitting and lies do not impress anyone, least of all me.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2050
May 16, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
He's a terrible liar at that. Accuse him of something, and he replies by accusing his accuser of actually having done what he's been accused of. Lol.. So childish. "I know you are, but what am I?" And he denies what is easily provable. Case in point: his posting of a thread to a child-pornography site within two weeks of his first appearance as Zwacko. Case in point: Admitting, even boasting, that he used to post as Sir Arthur--the same Sir Arthur who posted in 2011 that "boys to their teens" should be forced to swim totally NUDE, even when clothed girls swim among them and when other clothed women are present, because boys "look silly in bathing suits". Case in point: he denies he's a homosexual after posting, also within weeks of his debut as Zwacko, that teenaged girls shouldn't swim nude as boys should because they need their bathing suits to "hold in their tampons". Obviously, the only straight male who would believe that would be a male who has never played with a female sexually--who is totally unaware of the existence of the cervix. At his age, no male would be so inexperienced sexually unless he were a life-long celibate. And yet he claims to be a wealthy jet-setting playboy..lol..who just happens to be unfamiliar with the very basics of the female anatomy and feels that "boys to their teens" look better completely nude, even in a coeducational setting, than they do in swim wear. "Liar" doesn't quite cover (pardon the pun) Zwacko's persona on these threads. Oh, and he insists that Pedo Bob's tales of boy rape are "funny". The guy's a goblin.
More blabbery and insane fits from Mollyfag.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2052
May 16, 2013
 
MaltaMon wrote:
<quoted text> No again, Pedo Bob. It is illegal in 2013 even to view these photos wilfully, to search for and to access the sites that feature them. That I have helped police in IA, MD, PA and NJ to identify those who frequent these sites online, which have led to their arrests, belies your idiotic, entirely self-serving charge. I know the law, and I can spot you child-porn enthusiasts a mile away. Freak.
More hypocricy and contradictions from the pervert Mollyfag. It is YOU who said that it is preposterous for the law not to allow people to take nude photos of their children.
It was also YOU who said that boys who are embarrassed at showing themselves naked in front of others must have psychological problems.
It is YOU who should be arrested for showing interest in and condoning child abuse.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2053
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
A photo of naked boys in a shower circa 1940 is just that: a photo of a normal, healthy situation.
Only someone who considers such a situation to be sexual would consider it to be child pornography. Obviously, MaltaMolester thinks it a sexual situation, thus revealing him to be a pedophile.
The more he posts the more he proves that he is a pedophile pervert hiding behind a mask to avoid suspicion.
Also the fact that he continuously brings up the subject of nude boys on all threads, and FILLS the threads about nude boys with his posts is further proof of his perverted obsession.
The perverted idiot thinks that he is fooling anyone.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

14 Users are viewing the Education Forum right now

Search the Education Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
IBM Certification C2150-197 Exam questions 1 hr cdan 2
_______Are you afraid to show off what you have... (Mar '11) 15 hr MaltaMon 161
Did You Swim Nude In High School? (Dec '12) 16 hr Phil 1,219
Classroom security: What you should (not) do 16 hr Deathly Jericho Walls 4
Poor teens' health may benefit from top schools 16 hr Deathly Jericho Walls 6
Collab Written Exam 400-051 practice exam Wed testorches 1
Cisco TX9KMAN 500-005 exam questions Wed testorches 1
•••
•••