Ping Witt
Anon Post
internet?Your friends LDU and Pancho are gone for good.
I cant understand why they let you out.They WILL get you again.
Protect Our Children
Chucky
<anon...@nym.alias.net> writes
Hello, Mr Troll. Which one are you? I thought only pedos (and their
sympathisers) post anonymously.
Prey explain to us how you "protect our children", Mr Troll.
--
Chucky
Quik Fred
Ogo...@thirdcircle.hell wrote in message
<37ca9db5....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 04:11:42 GMT, Litt...@home.net (Spirit Chaser?)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:39:37 GMT, Ogo...@thirdcircle.hell wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Aug 1999 18:55:38 -0000, Anon Post <anon...@nym.alias.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Soooo they finally let you out.How do they treat child molesters in U.K.
prisons?Does your parole officer know that you are back on the
>>>>internet?Your friends LDU and Pancho are gone for good.
>>>>I cant understand why they let you out.They WILL get you again.
>>>>
>>>> Protect Our Children
>>>
>>>at anything in the real world, you stoop so low as to make accusations
>>>under an anonymous name here.
>>>
>>>How about some facts, dogshit ? How about sharing your vast knowledge
>>>of Witt's case, since you have accused him of child molestation, being
>>>in prison. being on parole, being friends with Pancho and LDU and
>>>probably being responsible for the war in Kosovo?
>>>
>>>While you're at it, dogshit, tell us all how it feels to be scum, to
>>>plot these accusations in your feeble little mind, to KNOW that you
>>>are one of the lowest forms of animal life on the planet, jumping with
>>>both feet on someone who has been down, whatever the cause.
>>>Tell us how you justify to yourself what you do...is it religion that
>>>pushes you to this sorry state....are you lonely....can't you get a
>>>job....do you have child cravings, yourself ?
>>>
>>>You are a spite-filled, insignificant nothing and can't swallow the
>>>fact that you always will be that. Fuck off and die, dogshit.
>>>
>>>Ogodai
>>>Demon of the Third Circle
>>>Apprentice in Avarice and Lechery
>>
>>
>>hehe.......letting off a little steam Ogodai?
>>
>>
>>SC
>>
>>"Little girls.....like butterflies, need no excuse."
>>---Robert Heinlein
>
>Yeah, I guess so......people who kick other people while they're down
>just piss me off, that's all. It takes a real pathetic sonofabitch to
>do that.
>
>Maybe I ought to tell it how I REALLY feel. <BG>
>
>Ogodai
>Demon of the Third Circle
>Apprentice in Avarice and Lechery
Isn't it amazing how these so called 'child savers' and other religious
moralists take such great joy in the misfortunes of others?
Chucky
<Quik...@GuessWhere.gbh> writes
<snip>
>Isn't it amazing how these so called 'child savers' and other religious
>moralists take such great joy in the misfortunes of others?
No, I don't think it is all that amazing. They can't feel morally
superior unless they have someone else they think they are entitled to
look down upon.
--
Chucky
Frank McCoy
>Isn't it amazing how these so called 'child savers' and other religious
>moralists take such great joy in the misfortunes of others?
I think that they feel so miserable at having to follow all those
stupid rules (going to church, paying tithes, you can't do this, you
can't do that, you have to feel guilty about anything that feels good)
that they can't feel happy seeing somebody else happy, because that
would mean they (the other people NOT religious) were being rewarded
for sinning.
They feel that sin SHOULD be punished in a public manner. And they
feel no hypocrisy in their enjoying watching the plight of a sinner.
As long as THEY didn't do the hurt, they figure why should they?
Those religions (of that type) don't teach the joy of making others
happy ... especially sinners (which is anybody NOT of that particular
denomination). Sad, really. They miss so much.
To them, everything is pain and suffering. Joy is suspect, unless
done in church for the glory of God. To see others (especially
sinners) in pain give them pleasure (what little they have) because it
lets them know that even sinners don't have all pleasure. Otherwise
their lives would be unbearable.
And WHY do they put up with this? Hellfire and Brimstone. They know
it's coming. Funny though ... they can describe with great detail and
delight all the pain and suffering due each type of sinner in Hell ...
but when it comes to the supposed joys of Heaven, they describe a
place that to you or me WOULD be Hell ... a hell of boredom. They
know so little pleasure, that what would be Heaven to you or me, would
scare them to death ... and would be more of a Hell to them, than the
Hell they prescribe for us.
They don't like to think ... they want to have "faith".
So thinking and puzzles, and challenges are out.
They don't want to argue with authority.
So discussions, and arguments are out.
They figure heaven will rescue them from the drudgery of Earth.
So, work is out.
They figure that sex is evil.
So you KNOW what won't be in Heaven for them.
By the time you get down to what is left, you have vague stories about
a place of soft clouds, gentle winds, good food, and not much else.
Thanks, but their description of Hell sounds more like Heaven to me
... at least THERE you can have adventures!
Who knows ... maybe OUR heaven IS their Hell ... and vice-versa!
Wouldn't THAT be the shits?
We'd get sent to their Heaven as punishment ... and vice-versa.
--
_____
/ ' /
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Poe...@webtv.net
no hypocrisy in their enjoying watching the plight of a sinner. As long
as THEY didn't do the hurt, they figure why should they?"
They feel that children SHOULD be humiliated in a public manner. And
they feel no hypocrisy in their enjoying watching the plight of an
abused child. As long as THEY didn't do the hurt, they figure why should
they?
Poe...@webtv.net
moralists take such great joy in the misfortunes of others?"
Isn't it amazing how these so called 'child-loving' pedophiles take such
great joy in the misfortunes of children...and want to actually watch
it?
Frank McCoy
Not quite sure who you're referring to here.
The change of quote might be correct, and might not, depending on who you are
referring to.
Many people delight in seeing a perceived sinner receiving what they feel is,
"just punishment." Far less enjoy seeing pain or suffering from a child.
Though I'll admit there are still far too many who go by the old adage that,
"Children should be seen, not heard." There is far too much abuse hidden in
that simple statement. But not humiliated ... they want children ignored, not
punished publicly ... the punishment is usually private ... where there's nobody
to intervene on their behalf (which goes to show that the abusers KNOW what they
are doing is wrong).
Just my opinion, of course.
Frank McCoy
Isn't it amazing how some people blame others for their own faults?
The racists blame blacks for despising them.
The moralists condemn others for not following Christ's word.
And the bigots who hate those different from them, accuse those people of doing
what they do ... in this case, taking joy in the misfortunes of others.
Poe...@webtv.net
be correct, and might not, depending on who you are referring to."
The change of quote is correct.
" CP And The Pedo Line Of Shit" :
I think that I shall never see
A thing as ugly as CP.
A thing that shows a little child,
Abused for slimy Pedophiles.
A Pedophile whose only fun
Is saving pictures by the ton
Of rape, assault, and mutilation
For later Public Degradation.
We know that folks, through all of time,
Watched others hurt and didn't mind;
But get this Pedo Line of Shit :
"We don't DO it....we only VIEW it ! "
Frank McCoy
>"Not quite sure who you're referring to here. The change of quote might
>be correct, and might not, depending on who you are referring to."
>
>The change of quote is correct.
>
Hi Goody.
You didn't identify who you were referring to; so the statement stands.
goo...@webtv.net
"not [that] the cops could find their own knobs with both hands and a
map..." ?
Interesting, no? Did they find yours? And did they find yours because
of this :
"Witt.
Dean of Philosophy, PU."
Doesn't "PU" stand for Pedo University? And aren't they the freaks that
splashed killer
Child Abuse all over the internet ....including the anal rape of babies,
and little girls in shock?
And referred to their pictures of the mutilation and torture of babies
and children as...... Pedo U's.... "Decorations"?
Do correct me if I'm wrong on any of this....DEAN.
And what does SWMBA mean?
Welcome back, DEAN.
Witt
Nobody's in for ever.
>How do they treat child molesters in U.K. prisons?
I've no idea, since I'm not one, and I never met any.
>Does your parole officer know that you are back on the
>internet?
I'm not on parole.
>Your friends LDU and Pancho are gone for good.
But, sadly for you, not dead. I suspect they retain more dignity than you
demonstrate. I, as they, hate gloaters.
>I cant understand why they let you out.
You should learn some law.
>They WILL get you again.
Bet?
> Protect Our Children
But not here, OK?
Witt
Witt
They feel that children SHOULD be humiliated in a public manner. And
they feel no hypocrisy in their enjoying watching the plight of an
abused child. As long as THEY didn't do the hurt, they figure why should
they?
>And how does a consenting nude depiction of a child fit in with YOUR
view of "humiliation", if at all? That's all >I< am prepared to defend on
principle; on practicalities, however, I've been studying porn, and child
porn, for many years now - without, I might add, having been corrupted
myself - and I think I know as much as most (i.e. most intelligent) people
of the social and political issues involved. That doesn't mean I support
child pornography OR child abuse and anyone who claims I do has failed
to understand me. That means YOU, bud!!
Witt.
Anonymous
> Protect Our Children
Witt reacted:
> But not here, OK?
Why not? Children should be protected here too. Furthermore, this is THE
place to discuss what our children should be protected from, and what
protection they would be better of not having at all.
--
Nothing is more beautiful than a happy child
Desire, GLDe...@hotmail.com, http://www.fpc.net/pages/desire/
Frank McCoy
>And what does SWMBA mean?
"She Who Must Be Adored"
A reference to the girl Laika.
Also: INLWT or:
"In Laika We Trust"
In the asylum, the admiration for the charms of Laika reached a point where some
of the members of PU founded a religion based on admiring her. (Which led to
all sorts of jokes about the religion, who was a priest, deacon, etc., and
constructing the church/cathedral, etc.)
A beautiful girl.
Somebody posted a series of pictures of her (fully clothed) in another newsgroup
about a year ago. Previous to that, I'd never seen her, because I don't
download pictures from that group. While not (in MY mind at least) the most
beautiful girl I've seen, she definitely had a charm that made the group's
enchantment with her understandable.
Her smile would make your day; and (as I remember) she was always smiling in
those pictures. (Well, I think she was ... it WAS quite a while ago.)
Of course, YOU will probably try to make something nasty of all this ...
something I understand her pictures never did.
Just pictures of a beautiful girl, with charisma and charm to enchant the most
confirmed grump.
goo...@webtv.net
Not nearly sorry enough.
****************
Pedophiles Are Child Abusers
goo...@webtv.net
Were you really in jail ? What for ? And for how long ?
Anonymous
> (a) exploitation - although it's very much a moot point, given only an image
> in most cases, to determine whether the subject of the image >has< been
> exploited;
Who is talking about _pictures_? I am talking about _children_. We have
to protect children. Whether the best way to do so is to endorse, fight
or shrug our shoulders about certain pictures is a secondary issue. It
is an important one, but even IF we would conclude that CP in no way is
harmful for children, there are still plenty of other things left that
children should be protected from, IMO.
> Yet those images are no different in content from (I estimate) about 75%
> of those appearing in alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen and similar
> newsgroups.
But we're talking about alt.activism.children here, not about abpep-t.
Again, the question _what_ children need to be protected from and which
protection is wholly unnecessary, is quite separate from the question
whether children should be protected. I'm not talking about protection
from being photographed naked, at least not in particular. If you think
that 'protecting children' implies that, you are making the same mistake
that the people you most dislike in this group are making.
> Furthermore, apart from the informational postings referring to, e.g.
> childrens' suffering in war zones, etc., I've seen over more than three
> years' reading of this newsgroup that those who shout loudest and
> longest here (and elsewhere) about the (presumed) abuse in the pictures
> under discussion (...)
Please show evidence that it was _the pictures_ that were under discussion,
and I'll rest my case. I had not seen them come up, at least not in this
sub-thread, until you posted the message I am now reacting to.
> I sometimes wonder. The quality of debate over the last three years has
> usually been somewhat higher in a.b.p.e.p-t, simply because there HAVE
> been those who have come seeking some understanding, without being
> sneeringly negative (Good22, there you are again!).
I will not be discussing the level of discourse on abpep-t, simply because
I don't know about it because I don't read the group (I'm not extremely
interested in erotic pictures, so I don't think it's worth the hassle to
take the necessary steps to receive the group - even apart from the legal
issue). However, I do think that the subject could be (and should be,
although unfortunately is not) discussed in a wider context here - not
only whether erotic pictures of children should be allowed, but also
whether they should be allowed to have sex, to work, to not go to school.
At most the first of these seems on topic on abpept. I wish we would be
discussing those other things more here. Not to mention the lack of
liberty of speech (including passive) that children and youths now all
too often have.
> As to this NG, without the Founding Statement, "activism.children"
> could mean anything, even supporting a campaign to have them back up
> chimneys and down mines.
So? That's what we have charters for.
> It's a great disappointment to me that this NG is unmoderated - this
> is not to restrict freedom of speech, merely to have some rational
> parameters for debate.
The problem is that in a debate where the parties are so far apart,
neither party will be willing the other party to moderate. Not to
mention that it is not possible to change an unmoderated newsgroup
into a moderated one - at least not in the alt.-hierarchy.
Witt
<16917-37...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Witt...in honor of your return....do you remember saying this :
>"not [that] the cops could find their own knobs with both hands and a
>map..." ?
>Interesting, no? Did they find yours?
If they'd tried, they themselves would have been sued from here to your
house by now.
The answer's no, of course.
>And did they find yours because
>of this :
>"Witt.
>Dean of Philosophy, PU."
>Doesn't "PU" stand for Pedo University?
Yes. So what? What's in a name? Your nick is "good22", but I don't think
you're "good"; certainly you do nothing credible for children here, and the
"22" makes me think that you are extremely unoriginal when signing up
for a WebTV account. But you shouldn't take mere names too seriously.
Pedo University is, and always was, a joke. Those who take jokes too
seriously end up looking like fools to the rest of the world - remember
the Emperor's New Clothes? That's what you're wearing here. Dennis
Vacco, in NY state, thought it was serious. Sure, he got some arrests,
but he lost the election. And even though PU is a joke, not everybody
who signed up to its membership is a paedophile, myself included.
>And aren't they the freaks that
>splashed killer
>Child Abuse all over the internet ....including the anal rape of babies,
>and little girls in shock?
I think your lurid imagination is several miles in front of the reality
here.
The answer's "no". PU never advocated, nor posted, any images whatsoever.
Here, your Emperor's New Clothes start to become less than invisible, if
that's not a paradox.
>And referred to their pictures of the mutilation and torture of babies
>and children as...... Pedo U's.... "Decorations"?
I remember the comment, but if you had as good a memory as I, you'd know
that
that comment was NOT made by a member of PU. This makes you a LIAR.
It's all back there in DejaNews.
>Do correct me if I'm wrong on any of this....DEAN.
See above....LIAR and LOSER.
>Welcome back, DEAN.
Thanks, DICKHEAD.
I play my own game - to win - and I'm certainly not
going to waste any more of my time on you. If you
ever had a chance (which I doubt), you blew it.
Witt
Witt
>place to discuss what our children should be protected from, and what
>protection they would be better of not having at all.
A) Whilst I agree most wholeheartedly that children should be protected from
(a) exploitation - although it's very much a moot point, given only an image
in most cases, to determine whether the subject of the image >has< been
exploited; I'd cite here the case in which Brooke Shields attempted to
prevent the publication of nude images of herself as a child and in which
(if I remember correctly), the court ruled that as she had made a career
of appearing either nude or semi-nude, she had no remedy in law as to
the images in question. Yet those images are no different in content
from (I estimate) about 75% of those appearing in alt.binaries.pictures.
erotica.pre-teen and similar newsgroups. The other ~25% is, of course,
more problematic, which leads me to discuss
(b) abuse. Now I am not the only commentator to note that when the
words "child" and "abuse" occur in text within eight positions of each
other, otherwise normal, ostensibly well-balanced individuals begin
to foam at the mouth and behave in totally irrational ways. In fact, this
doesn't surprise me much, for two reasons: (i) in social science (in
which I have the honor to possess a Master's degree), "child abuse"
used to have a very specific meaning, and one which sadly persists
only in reputable academic circles, of "direct harm caused to a child,
of an enduring and persistent nature, by a person or persons
with a close functional relationship to the child" (ii) the tabloid press,
however (and to my horror, some of the more responsible journals)
have taken the phrase "child abuse" and extended it beyond the
foregoing definition, and the less discerning public have accepted
this change of meaning without question. To an extent, I do not
complain about that, BUT it should be clear that there are degrees
of harm which may be caused to a child (or anyone, come to that),
and some are worse than others. Example: it's well-documented
that victims of child abuse (in the academic sense) are much more
likely to become abusers themselves than victims of casual assault.
And yet, it simply isn't possible to assume 100% from an image that
"child abuse" has happened. I've referred more than once, here and
elsewhere to research of which I've been informed (and I've never put
it higher than that) which showed that with reference to the early 1970s
(and then, perfectly legal) child porn pics from northern Europe, the
children involved were somewhat better socially adjusted than their
peers. As expected from a critical readership, I've been insulted for
mentioning this research, and, believe me, I'm still trying to find it.
Perhaps a concerted email request to bgoo...@filebank.com
(that's Dr. Bill Goodrich, a well known psychotherapist and expert
on aberrant sexuality) might yield more results than I have been able
to achieve.
Sorry to bore you, but I must deal with
B) "Children should be protected here too".
I find this difficult to follow. Children are real. This place is abstract.
The only thing in relation to children which has any chance of being
protected here, is children's rights as set out by the UN. No child
in the world will actually be protected (or, by analogy, harmed) by
anything posted here. Furthermore, apart from the informational
postings referring to, e.g. childrens' suffering in war zones, etc.,
I've seen over more than three years' reading of this newsgroup that
those who shout loudest and longest here (and elsewhere) about the
(presumed) abuse in the pictures under discussion not only make no
suggestions whatsoever about how children should (have been)
protected (perhaps some thirty years ago), but also waste their
energies in castigating those such as myself who realise, and try
to point out, the subtleties of the issues raised by those pictures
(Good22, for example. My current reply to her is the last one she'll
get from me, but she still is not prepared to learn - anything).
Finally,
C) "this is THE place to discuss ...."
I sometimes wonder. The quality of debate over the last three years has
usually
been somewhat higher in a.b.p.e.p-t, simply because there HAVE been those
who have come seeking some understanding, without being sneeringly negative
(Good22, there you are again!). As to this NG, without the Founding
Statement,
"activism.children" could mean anything, even supporting a campaign to have
them
back up chimneys and down mines. It's a great disappointment to me that this
NG
is unmoderated - this is not to restrict freedom of speech, merely to have
some
rational parameters for debate. Initially, this NG was virtually dead - 10
posts a
week at best. At least now, it's lively, but at least moderation would get
rid of some
of the idiots who deride everything, admit nothing, and, most importantly,
contribute
nothing - especially to the welfare of children.
Witt