Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

15 years ago ...

398 views
Skip to first unread message

mcc...@millcomm.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 7:07:20 PM1/13/08
to
I posted a story (most of which *I* wrote) to a discussion-group on a
BBS which connected to something I wasn't really familiar with, called
a newsgroup: alt.sex.stories, I think it was.

The story, because of the limited access provided by the BBS (less
than 32K at a time, I think, was posted in about 120 truly *horrible
parts; but the *response* was tremendous ... (most people asking for
missing parts; "PLEASE post part # XXX-XXZ ... My newsreader didn't
get those!"

The story was titled, "Her Father's Daughter"; but because of a
mistake in the title, most thought it was something like: Father's
Daugther" instead.

At the time, there was no other story *anywhere* in the world, in
print, on the net, newsgroups, or elsewhere like it: It was (like all
the stories I've posted since, a *LOVE STORY* masquerading as humor
and sex-story ... LOTS of sex! I *tried* to include about every taboo
then existing for erotic stories, including most-especially: incest,
pregnancy, and yes, "pedophilia"; or young people having and enjoying
sex and even full-term pregnancy as a way of expressing that love.

It was a hit, far beyond anything I ever imagined. I got several
*thousand* emails and responses; praising the story for it's
vividness, it's love, its reality, its humor, and yes (most
importantly to *me* at least) its value and wonder as a *story*.

However, as explained in both the preamble and afterword of the story,
i *really* expected this story, pure fantasy mind, to have the Police
banging at my door, charging me with "disseminating Child Pornography"
or something equally silly, considering that no real child was
involved or documented; and the story was pure *text*!

Still, there are thousands if not millions of blue-noses out there
that *hate* anything having to do with that Devil's Invention: SEX!

Still, for year after year I kept posting NEW stories about the same
subject; but never so huge or complete. I also kept expecting the
same "Bang! Bang! Bang!" on the door from the police; but nothing ever
happened. It was actually quite a disappointment in a way; because I
*wanted* the story(s) to be challenged in court on the constitutional
issue.

Also, in newsgroups and other places; particularly assd, I kept
posting a challenge to those who claimed my stories were illegal
"child porn": Put up or shut up. Nobody "put up"

All this time I posted under my own REAL name, not an alias or other
hiding device, using my own real email address which I have paid
through the nose to keep during all these years. I've told people
where I lived; and that I am in the phone-book. I've invited anybody
to correspond with me, or even call me on the phone. So far, in 14
years, only one person ever did.

During the last year or so I've gotten tired. I still *compose* sex-
stories in my mind; and sometimes even enter them on the computer; but
I rarely go to the extra trouble of cleaning them up enough to post
and actually post them. I haven't stopped exactly; I've more like
paused. For the past half dozen months I've been too preocuppied with
my wife being sick with cancer (lymphoma) to actually post *any*
stories at all.

I *have* however, posted comments and opinions to various newsgroups;
often twitting the anti-sex groups; saying my stories are legal.

Last Wednesday, (probably a month or two before that, actully) it
seems somebody decided to "put up" and see what they could do about
this annoying McCoy person. At 10:00 in the morning, while I was
heading (naked) out to the kitchen to get morning medications for my
wife (and myself too) there was that "Bang! Bang! Bang!" on the door
that I had really expected 14 long years before. "Police!" came the
yell: "Open up!"

Not wanting the door broken down, I did ... Nudity and all. Outside
were *SEVEN* huge cops in black outfits, yes really prepared with a
huge steel pole to break the door in! As if I was some fully armed
drug-dealer about to fight it out with my cancer-ridden wife stumbling
out of the bedroom, barely able to stand, while they were chaining me

.... OOPS!
Sorry! The Internet Cafe I'm posting this from closes at SIX, not
NINE. I'll have to complete it from someplace else. I understand
there's a local IC closer to home than this one; that's open 'till
nine.

If not, the rest of this saga might have to wait.

Forgive the .sig not being mine.
Please post to assd and perhaps ac.
I've got to go.
(Not having my own computer right now.)

Frank

mcc...@millcomm.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 10:00:30 PM1/13/08
to
... and ... I'm back; trying to post the rest from another store
that's open later.

Geesh ... I'm told they all have basically the same hours; but the one
I chose first (because another store I tried to find something in) was
nearby, closed *three* hours earlier than most of the rest ... Because
the mall there closed at six. Oh well ....

Anyway, the keyboard *here* is about 1000% better, so ...

So there I am, in my naked nudit, and the cops cuffing me with belly-
chain, while barely allowing me clothes to get dressed in. I couldn't
get them, they wouldn't get them for me, and the wife being almost too
sick to get them. Luckily, she did.

But ... They wouldn't allow me to take along my wallet with ID, money,
Credit-Cards, etc. This gets *very* important a little while later.
Actually, it turned out to be lucky.

They *did* allow me to wear suspenders (but not belt) so my pants
didn't fall down, wear my watch, and take along my reading-glasses
(without the case; and the eyepiece fell out; but they bagged it).
THIS turned out to be a big mistake; but not for any reason you might
expect. ;-{

So ... There I am, all trussed up like a goose, and *still* no word of
what it's all about. However, once the cops decided I didn't look
like an armed bank-robber or violent criminal about to go running for
the border in my bare feet and barely able to run at all, even without
the cuffs and chains, somebody relented and told me this was about my
*stories*; with some mention made (but not too specifically) about
"child pornography" and me perhaps disemminating them.

Oh Geesh ... STORIES ... So why didn't somebody just come by, call, or
*ASK* me? My guess, is a "fishing expedition. More about that guess
later.

It seems, while the local police were there (of some kind; I'm not all
that sure) the main person(s) coming to pick me up were Federal
Marshals. It seems somebody in *Georgia* had made out a complaint
about me ... what about, other than stories, wasn't said; but it *was*
about *stories*, not what most people would consider "child porn".
Geesh.

I've always been, am now, and will be *quite* willing to defend my
*stories*, yes even *posting* stories to the net.
A. I don't think it's illegal.
B. If it *is* illegal, I contend the law saying-so is
unconstitutional.

I've always been *quite* willing to defend both of those items in
court.
However, remember it's been *fifteen effing years* (the "public"
connection I'm using won't let me use the f-word) since I first posted
HFD in 114+ awful parts; without even a *hint* of legal shennanigans.
I'm not so prepared physically, mentally, and even legally as I was
even five years ago, long before my wife showed up with cancer. I'll
admit the charge blind-sided me; because I *really* thought the police
had more sense!

(The local police do. About three year ago, when my wife was out of
her head because of a urinary-tract-infection for a day or so until
the doctors gave her propre antibiotics, *she* actually accused me of
writing "child porn". So ... I showed the police the stories I write,
pointing out it's all pure *text*, and showed them also my "library of
child porn" down in the basement where I keep my Science-Fiction and
other paperbacks. I pointed to the CP of perfectly legal TEXT I had
(several hundred paperbacks) that my wife called "child pornography";
told them my situation, standing, and how I *was* prepared to defend
them in court. The looked, nodded, and agreed essentially that if I
was planning on defending that, I was doing it the right way ... and
left; figuring rightly that text was NOT child-porn no matter what my
wife while out of her head thought. (Another time with another
infection, she thought she was going to Heaven; and was giving away
her watch, ring, and other things like that, because she wouldn't need
them when the Angels took her. If you can't guess, she's quite
religious.) Luckily, when she isn't half or more out of her head,
these religious attitudes don't make her a complete nut. We just
disagree on whether there's a god, if if-so, whether one great enough
to make the Universe would be interested in creatures like US.
Certainly an anthromophic (sp?) god looking, acting, and being like
most ancient people's idea of what a great King was, has little appeal
to me as making the slightest bit of sense.

Back to me and LEA:

So ... They wanted my *stories*?
Geesh, why didn't they just *ask*?
And, if they wanted *me*, why not just ask me to come along?
Idiots.

So, to keep them from tearing the house apart, I said, "There's *my*
computer. Anything and everything you want is on THERE. They asked
if they could take the computer to Georgia. I refused to give
permission to THAT; but I did say they could take it down to
Minneapolis (or locally). I did *NOT* give them permission to search
the computer, to search my house, or anything else. In fact, I loudly
and verbally objected to the *entire* warrant, search, and siezure of
anything. They didn't seem to be listening; and later, in court,
alledged that I gave permission to search both house and computer(s).
I did not. Thankfully, my lawyer corrected *that*. I just pointed
out where the material they were looking for WAS. I did not give them
permission to search anything.

I *did* say, "If it's my *STORIES* you're interested in, then THEY are
right there, in that bookcase. Every light-brown cardboard "binder"
is one of my stories; and I *think* that's about all of them." So,
they collected those, actually with my grace.

I *did* make a mistake (not a *legal* mistake; but a practical one;
which I've since regretted enormously) I also pointed out the big blue
binder of *current* stories I'm working on; and said, "Those are my
stories too." So they collected that, as well. Damn. Why Damn?
Because, with the computer gone, those are the *only* record I have of
what I've been currently writing. Stuff almost all mainly for *me*
alone, and nothing I'd really been even contemplating posting to the
net. They don't need that for their idiotic and illegal "case" about
me putting stuff on the net. I don't think even they are dumb enough
to try and arrest me for what I *think* or put down about my private
thoughts, unless perhaps it was evidence of illegal plans ... which
they were not. Since they left a similar binder I didn't point out
(not containing anything interesting or important to them; but still
containing stories of other kinds ... which I didn't think *would*
interest them); I feel like a fool for suggesting my *only* copy
(without the disk backups) of what I currently was thinking and
writing. Ah well: Water under the dam and over the bridge. ;-|

Anyway, while I didn't exactly get a reciept, the Marshal showed me a
list of what he was collecting (later, downtown) showing it was my
computer and the wife's ("two towers") my laptop, a loose hard-drive
(broken, BTW ... Lots of luck with that) and "a thumb-drive" WTF?
"Thumb Drive"????

Days later, I figured what the "thumb drive" was: I have an old ATI
"All In Wonder" card, that has (had) TV in/out on it. As part of
that, there was a round *antenna* used to connect to the remote-
control, with a USB port. I *hope* the hell that LEA won't ruin that
good antenna trying to access it as a disk-drive. With the rest of
the idiocy, I don't have much hope; though I'm going to *try* and have
my lawyer point out the mistake before they start operating on it with
a screwdriver and completely ruin it for its original use. ;-{

BTW: There actually *was* a completely broken and useless "thumb-
drive" (actually a memory-stick) right nearby ... and they didn't take
that. I finally tossed the thing. It was empty and useless; and
should have tossed the crap about a year or so ago when I accidentally
bumped my foot on the thing and it wouldn't read or write any more.
BIG hole in my computer room now.

So ... Down to Minneapolis, belly-chained and wondering how badly they
were going to tear my house apart looking for something that didn't
exist. (It's *always* worse when LEA go looking for something and not
finding it ... They keep tearing the house apart on the idea that if
they destroy the thing, maybe they *will* find at least something
illegal: guns, money, drugs, ... ANYTHING. That's *why* I pointed out
where anything and everything they wanted *was*. That way the house
isn't trashed beyond repair. NOT giving consent to the search mind;
just trying to save my house.

Of course, they misread that. ;-{

So ... 10:00 in the morning; with a judge to see at 3:00 in the
afternoon. Five *hours* staring at a wall in the "tank". I did tell
them I can't afford a lawyer (I can't.) I listed my financial
situation: I have *just* enough money to pay my bills and not get into
debt. I *don't* have any extra. In fact, to keep from encurring
illegal debts, for the past three months I've had to drop my health-
insurance and *hope* I survive the next ten months until I turn 65 and
am able to get medicare ... and hopefully "supplemental insurance"
like my wife has. If not ... I guess I'll just have to die. I try
*not* to run up bills I cannot afford to pay off. Unlike most people
with credit-card debt up to their eyebrows. Thankfully, they seemed
to appreciate that.

My court-appointed attorney points out that the Marshals have the
*right* to hold me for up to three days without even charging me. ;-
{

However, she's going to *try* and get me released ASAP ... Which sadly
wouldn *not* be that day. That's just to set up "an appearance" a few
days later. The Feds *might* want me held in custody until court
appearance in Georgia! Shit. But she's going to *try* and get me out
the coming Friday.

This is what happens; they do hold me for 2 1/2 days in the *local*
pokey (near where I live) like I was a truly horrid child-rapist and
murderer. (OTOH, they treat *everybody* being held there in the same
way; from violent criminal to bad-check-passer; so I can't really
complain.) In fact, they saw to my health (Diabetes, Hypertension,
Cholesterol) likely *better* than I had been at home; missing many of
my meds while trying to ensure my wife got hers. In fact, my blood-
sugar *dropped* from a horrid high of 236 when taken in, to only 127
shortly before getting out. Wow. I *really* need to watch my meds!
It doesn't make sense to worry about the wife, when *I* die.

Oh ... The wife ... SHE wasn't in any condition to take care of
herself; half out of her mind from the chemotherapy; and *I* wouldn't
be there to take care of her ... So the police (local) packed her and
her meds up and took her to a friends to stay until the next day when
a person we'd been planning on taking care of her if it got too much
for me could take her in. I was *still* worried sick about not being
able to care for her; but at least *somebody* would. Not the same;
and not as good; but care.

Now ... Three days later: arraignment and hearing:

The officer getting me back into my "street clothes" asks me if I
wanted to wear my jacket down to the hearing. Coming *up* in the
prisoner-van had been stifling hot; and I figured I'd be either in the
van or inside a building all the way down and all the way back; so why
bother? Why swelter? So I said I didn't ned it; and would get it
back when they released me. The booking-officer seemed to agree.

Surprisingly, my court-appointed attorney (who agrees that the whold
case is bogus and probably a fishing expedition) doesn't have to even
*ask* for me to be released on my own (signature) bond. The people in
Georgia seem to realize I am *not* a "danger to the community"; nor
even a "flight risk". They're agreeable to my being released. (But
who knows what goes when I get down to Georgia; though just *going*
there and not violating bond will [I think] be good evidence for me
not being held down there. Of course, like no money for a lawyer, I
have even *less* money for traveling down to Georgia and back; nor
indeed especially for *staying* down there. That last *might*
actually make it easier for *me* to just say, "Hold me in custody"
rather than being out on my own. Hell, if things are bad, I might
even *request* it. They have agreed to fund my travel; though the
specifics have yet to be worked out.

So .... (HERE comes the FUN part ... I wonder what a newspaper would
make of this; and I'm *almost* tempted to call the local press and
tell them all the juicy details!)

There I am; The judge agrees I'm not a risk; and just a "signature
bond" is all I need; saying I *will* appear in Georgia at the
specified time. Now I *really* expected (and wouldn't anybody else
reading this think so too?) that they would then pack me up with all
the *other* prisoners and take me back home ... or at least the jail
*near* home where I've spent the last two days.

About an hours wait in a "holding cell" (but at least with a blanket
to use as a pillow this time) and I'm taken upstairs (still in
handcuffs until I sign my bond) told the conditions of my release (to
appear in Georgia on-time; and *not* to be posting any sex-stories or
links to any on the net.

Then: I'm told, "You're free to go ... Leave."
Oh yeah ... they *finally* give me a copy of the charges *and* (at my
very specific request) a copy of the law I've supposedly broken. Get
this:

I'm charged with: "transmitting obscene material".
Specifically, with *posting links* (No, NOT posting the material on
those links!) to three sex-stories websites: Specifically the *three*
websites where my stories *are* but *not* for posting the stories
themselves!!!! Go figure!

No, (to meet the terms of my release and what I agreed-to) I am *not*
going to name the three websites; except to say that ONE of the three
no longer exists, and the other two are Mr. D's spot carrying my
stories; along with the main repository for all erotic stories. Most
people will know *exactly* what websites (or, actually just pages)
that I'm talking about. I just won't be more specific here. Don't
want to violate my promise even indirectly. NO posted links; NOR any
sex-stories.

So ... "You're released: Go home, and appear in court in Georgia in a
little over a week." Yeah ... Right!

I'm standing there in the local US Court House ... In my effing-T-
SHIRT! I have *no* jacket, *no* ID (they took my DL, remember), *no*
money, *no* wallet, not even a friend to call. (All of *my* friends
are here; thousands of miles away; and I don't even have Internet
access to post a cry for help! Nor money to do so.) It's *30 MILES
from downtown to home (or the jail I was in for two days) the weather
is like *20 degrees out* and the temperature dropping fast. I'm
supposed to *walk* 30 miles to home in my shirt-sleeves, in well-below-
freezing weather, with no money nor even ID to show who I am to the
cops if they pull me over for a "ped check" ... and find me without
ID, moneyless, and *walking* home. So, immediately I guess they'd
arrest me for vagrancy or something; thus violating my release! Or,
what if I *do* start the long treck with it getting down to close to
Zero F that night? There are many stories of people out in that kind
of cold, freezing to death in only an hour or so. That, of course, is
none of their concern!

Not *quite* as bad as that; but almost.
Desperate, I walk around to the Public Defender's Office where my
lawyer was (luckily) still there. They get me a "free" telephone to
talk into ... But I've nobody to call; and I *don't* remember
telephone-numbers worth shit. Besides, who do I call anyway? The PD
however, is a nice guy. He calls around; and there *is* a local bus
(about five to ten blocks away in sub-freezing weather). He says the
bus-fare out to my town (about three miles from home) is $5.50; and
he's willing to give me *that* out of his own pocket; as the goverment
won't. It's also getting very close to closing-time and everybody's
going home on Friday Afternoon.

Now *really* desperate, I call the one person I have a number for, the
person who was taking my wife in for the night, two nights earlier,
and explain my predicament. I OWE them big time! Her husband drives
*all thirty miles* downtown, picks me up, takes me to the jail to get
my stuff, over to where my wife is staying in an "assisted living"
home of a person who's a nurse to pick up keys so I can get into the
house, and finally back to my own house to be *home*!

Only: The wife *is* now too sick to come home; having deteriorated a
*lot* in the three days now I've been gone; so it's me alone. ;-{

You think *that* is all fun and funny?
In a year or so, it might even be to me. I can grin at it now
already.

Like the commercial though:
"But wait! There's MORE!"

Remember my coat, glasses, watch, medicine, suspenders, Driver's
Licence, etc., all taken from/with me when I was picked up? (Also
some money which was gotten to me through other people; but that
wasn't a problem.)

Well, the booking officer at the local jail comes out with a big brown
paper-bag; and I'm delighted to see my big jacket (it;s STILL cold
out) ... and down in the bottom my medicine. NO glasses, NO, Drivers'
Licence, NO suspenders, NO watch ... NOTHING else.

So ... How am I supposed to drive a car legally without a DL, how do I
read without my reading-glasses, hold my pants up without suspenders,
or get to appointments without my watch?

The booking officer doesn't know. One of the women there in the
booking section *remembers* my reading-glasses because I wanted them
with me; but they only allow *one* pair of glasses per-person in the
jail. So, yes, they agree my stuff is missing; but nobody knows where
it is! I understand they've been *looking* for it ever since; doing
more and more intensive searches; but ....

So ... Saturday I call the local sherrif to see if it's legal to drive
down to the local licence-bureau (which luckily *is* open on Saturday)
to get a duplicate. They tell me to just tell an officer what
happened (and preferably not get pulled over). I find my wallet in
the bedroom, find my *previous* (but now expired) licence in a drawer,
and drive down and get "legal" to drive. I go over to Wal-Mart and
buy a new watch. (The original cost $79 a few years earlier. The
*exact replacement* now costs me only $44.) I find replacement
suspenders in the closet. (The others were getting old anyway.) The
reading glasses however ... I can't AFFORD another $100 to buy a
prescription pair of glasses with good frames and anti-reflective
coating.

That's Saturday. I only got to visit with my wife for about half an
hour. ;-{
She's *way* too weak to make it up and down the stairs for our house.
In fact, when I got back, I was afraid she was dying on me.
However, she *did* look a tiny bit better; having finally slept
through the night for the first time since I was gone.
Sunday she was taken to church, and I met her there.
More on the wife, later, and in a separate post.

So, after that, I've been working on the checkbook and ... writing
this *huge* message telling the (actually rather humorous) account of
my (so-far) brush with the law. At least NEXT time, when going down
to Georgia, I'll be somewhat prepared and *expecting* to be away.

Except for missing the wife (horribly), being in custody doesn't
bother me all that much. Boring as hell; But Federal jails aren't
nearly the hell-houses I understand some local jails are.

Yeah, I know; I *expect* to get out.
Still (worst case scenario): If my wife dies, I *won't* have much will
to live ... or even fight a completely bogus charge. If she *did*
die, I might even plead "Nolo Contendre", meaning I won't fight the
charges ... Because in THAT case perpaps Federal Prison might be the
*safest* place I could be. Because, if they set me free without my
wife to come back to ... I'd probably be dead within two days. No,
not from suicide; I'm not the type. I'd just be walking aimlessly,
probably down the highway in the general direction of Oregon, over the
mountains, in the middle of Winter, without a *reason* to live; and be
found dead in a ditch, frozen sometime next Spring.

I'm *trying* not to think about that: The wife dying.
Still, every time I see her and how weak she is ....
I wonder if she'll make it through the rest of the chemotherapy.
If she does; then it *will* be a hell of a battle.

Love, Frank.
Sorry about not having my regular .sig
I've got to close now ... This place is closing.
Could somebody please copy this to the other appropriate places?
Without a real computer, this is the best I could do: My own froup.

Frank.

Lurker

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 10:55:12 PM1/13/08
to

Lurker

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 10:56:32 PM1/13/08
to

The TheatrElf

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 12:29:29 AM1/14/08
to
You know, thousands of people drop dead each day, and none of
them are this jerkwad Lurker. Damned disappointing.

--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf

And the less I seek my source for some definitive, closer I am
to fine...


Lurker

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 12:50:10 AM1/14/08
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:29:29 -0600, The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>You know, thousands of people drop dead each day, and none of
>them are this jerkwad Lurker. Damned disappointing.

What's you problem?

I am just doing Frank a common courtesy.

He asked for his messages to be posted to alt.callahans and ASSD.

With friends like you in such a time of dire need he really doesn't
need enemies does he?

Heidi Schwartz

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 1:41:41 AM1/14/08
to

It's really ironic when only people who detest what he does seem to give a
damn when he is finally being arrested and jailed.

My heart is open for his poor wife who has enough without this trauma.

The TheatrElf

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 1:59:47 AM1/14/08
to
Lurker <nos...@nospam.org> wrote in
news:cmtlo3peileg96l1c...@4ax.com:

> He asked for his messages to be posted to alt.callahans and
> ASSD.

Like someone being arrested would actually have time to POST such
a request.

You've demonstrated that you lie at the drop of the hat, and I
have no doubt at all that you're lying now, you sorry piece of
shit.

--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf


A closed mouth gathers no foot.


The TheatrElf

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 2:00:53 AM1/14/08
to
"Heidi Schwartz" <hrsw...@dietvernichtnospam.net.de> wrote in
news:op.t4wp7...@user-pc.belkin:

> It's really ironic when only people who detest what he does
> seem to give a damn when he is finally being arrested and
> jailed.

Don't take lurker's word on anything; he lies like a cheap rug.

--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf


"But we'll never survive!" "Nonsense. You're only saying that
because no one ever has." William Goldman, THE PRINCESS BRIDE


Lurker

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 2:17:04 AM1/14/08
to
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:59:47 -0600, The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net>
wrote:

>Lurker <nos...@nospam.org> wrote in

>news:cmtlo3peileg96l1c...@4ax.com:
>
>> He asked for his messages to be posted to alt.callahans and
>> ASSD.
>
>Like someone being arrested would actually have time to POST such
>a request.

Perhaps you can't understand what Frank is telling you.

Are you drunk or drugged or something?

He sent three days in a federal jail and has just been released.
his lawyer had to get him home.


>
>You've demonstrated that you lie at the drop of the hat,

I would have thought this recent development a clear indication I do
not.

>and I have no doubt at all that you're lying now,

I haven't said anything to be lying or not lying have I?

Like I said I am just doing him a common courtesy and posting his
message for him.

> you sorry piece of shit.

Try reading what Frank is trying to tell you when you have sobered up.

The TheatrElf

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 7:44:13 AM1/14/08
to
Lurker <nos...@nospam.org> wrote in
news:ji2mo35gltjtpoa5l...@4ax.com:

>>
>>You've demonstrated that you lie at the drop of the hat,
>
> I would have thought this recent development a clear
> indication I do not.

Except of course, that the "recent development" is itself a lie.

--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf

You can't lick the system, but you can certainly give it a damn
good fondling...


Message has been deleted

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 6:15:53 PM1/14/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:44:13 -0600, The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Lurker <nos...@nospam.org> wrote in
> >news:ji2mo35gltjtpoa5l...@4ax.com:
> >
> >>>
> >>>You've demonstrated that you lie at the drop of the hat,
> >>
> >> I would have thought this recent development a clear
> >> indication I do not.
> >
> >Except of course, that the "recent development" is itself a lie.
>
> Why do you say that?
>
> Are you saying Frank is making it up for some reason,or are you
> frightened they will come banging on your door next?
--------------------
I wouldn't put it past him, he's a fiction writer, dumbshit!
Steve

The TheatrElf

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 8:10:49 PM1/14/08
to
"R. Steve Walz" <rst...@armory.com> wrote in
news:478BED...@armory.com:

And I haven't seen one shred of proof that Frank wrote what
lurker posted. All we have is that claim from the sleazy cross-
posting troll who's been lying his ass off for weeks. He hasn't
told the truth yet; why would anyone believe him now?

--
Xjahn
The TheatrElf


Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come.


Dan Goodman

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 8:23:12 PM1/14/08
to
R. Steve Walz wrote:

Welcome! Welcome to my killfile!

Are you the sock puppet of someone I've already zapped, or are you
really a new paranoid liar? Don't bother to answer.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

Sean Cleary

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 12:24:49 AM1/15/08
to
Terry Pratchett had a part of a story* where someone had written "He's
got me! I'm dying, AUUGGGG!", in stone. Presumably with a chisel.
Maybe with another stone.

I hope that this is part of the same kind of thing.

Sean

* done from memory, likely not as good at the original.

Message has been deleted

Ken

unread,
Jan 16, 2008, 4:56:32 AM1/16/08
to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:09:36 -0800, Samantha Pierce-Harder
<sampierc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:10:49 -0600, The TheatrElf <xj...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
** snip **


>
>> All we have is that claim from the sleazy cross-
>>posting troll who's been lying his ass off for weeks.
>

>Obviously he was neither a troll nor lying.
>
>He said Frank was involved in distributing child pornography and that
>is what he has been charged with.
>

Actually, according to post 2, Frank has been charged with
transmitting obscene material, not child pornography. Obscene
material covers a lot of things. What's more the charges do not
relate to Frank's stories specifically, but to having given links to
sites where Frank's stories appear. Note that these sites also have
stories written by others. Nor has Frank been charged with
distributing anything. I am sure there are states with laws which
relate specifically to the distribution of child pornography carrying
much more severe penalties than for obscene material. But these were
not used.

If that is the case, then some of Frank's trolls could also be
prosecuted, as I have seen at least one of the site's address given in
a newsgroup post, and repeated in replies to that post. I suspect
that the prosecution feels it could not win on the content of Frank's
stories alone, because of your constitution.

However, the concept of transmitting is difficult to handle, as is the
concept of publishing, when dealing with electronic media. If Frank
sent someone an e-mail with the addresses in it, then he could have
transmitted them, same as if he had sent a physical letter. But if
all he did was post them to a web site, etc. then he has not
transmitted them but published them. And in the US, the point of
publication of electronic information is the physical location of the
host computer. So unless Frank posted to a server in Georgia, he
probably hasn't published there.

>> He hasn't
>>told the truth yet;
>

>You are in denial. Clearly he WAS telling the truth.


>
>>why would anyone believe him now?
>

>Because Frank has been dragged to jail in chains charged with
>distributing child pornography?

Frank McCoy

unread,
Jan 17, 2008, 5:11:47 PM1/17/08
to
In alt.callahans Samantha Pierce-Harder <sampierc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>He said Frank was involved in distributing child pornography and that
>is what he has been charged with.

Well, actually, that's *NOT* what I've been charged with at all.
"Transporting of Obscene Matters" 18 U.S.C. § 1462
That's:
Section 1462, "Importation or transportation of Obscene Matters"
Chapter 71 - Obscenity
Communications Act of 1934

I'm working on what that actually means; and what it is when they say
"transportation" and "Obscene Matter".

Look it up and read the law yourself.
As I understand (so far), several *parts* of that law; actually
including *most* of the law, has been declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court. Only ... Not the entire law (yet); nor specifically that
particular part. I'll find out later for sure.

Still, I can't help but wonder if the prosecuting attorneys even *read*
the actual statute before charging me under it for "fantasy stories" as
it says in the indictment. Pure fantasy?

Ah well: We shall see.
Ain't discussing the actual case itself; other than saying what the case
actually *is* about, to dispel false rumors. How we intend to defend,
and what else happens is waiting to see what happens next down in
Georgia. I want the *truth* there, even if it sends me to jail.
However, I'll be damned if I'm going to *volunteer* information they
don't already have. Nor should I have to ... Just look at all the
thousands of posts I've made previously.

I *suspect* this is pure bullshit, intended to harass and do an illegal
search and seizure of both me and my computer for what they *suspect* I
might have or be doing that they then can charge me later with, but not
now having the slightest bit of evidence to charge me. But that's sheer
guessing.

With *luck* the entire case will be thrown out and that will never
really become an issue; but who knows what evil ....

When the government (as I suspect; but *only* suspect, mind) goes on a
"fishing expedition", who knows what will happen? I *might* be
completely wrong about all this; and they really *do* want to try and
convict me of these exact charges. We shall see.

Surprisingly, except for the bullshit way they arrested me, and the fact
that they *did* arrest me for such idiocy, Prosecutors, Marshal's
Office, and Public Defenders have been acting like genuine
Law-Enforcement Personnel of the type my mother raised me to respect;
*not* like a small-town Southern cop with a chip on his shoulder like
you see in movies. "In the Heat of the Night" comes to mind ... Or
perhaps "The Dukes of Hazzard". ;-}

OTOH: How otherwise do you explain the charges themselves?

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

Message has been deleted

Bette

unread,
Feb 3, 2008, 7:53:53 AM2/3/08
to
On Jan 14, 1:41 am, "Heidi Schwartz"

Heidi, How is Eileen doing health wise?
Last thing I heard was having treatments for her cancer.
Yes, she has always objected to his writing, it would be traumatic.
Bette
treatments for her cancer. What a horrible time to be

ªºªandcarole®

unread,
Feb 3, 2008, 8:40:07 AM2/3/08
to

Did pedo mccoy finally get what he/it deserves?

Message has been deleted

Baal

unread,
Feb 4, 2008, 2:08:27 AM2/4/08
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Brandon D Cartwright wrote in alt.fan.frank.mccoy on Sunday 03 February
2008 21:34 in Message-ID: <i4tcq3dub524cbvq1...@4ax.com>:

[snip]

> IMO his only hope of avoiding dying in jail is to plead guilty and
> co-operate with the prosecutor to nail the other members of his child
> pornography group..

How many fucking times do you have to be told that the U.S. child
pornography statute DOES NOT COVER TEXT? Given the number of times that
you continue to repeat the same incorrect information again and again,
I can only conclude that you are being willfully and deliberately ignorant.

Just because you WISH that the law covered text, will not make it so.
If you wish to live in a jurisdiction that /does/ classify text as child
pornography, move to Canada. (Or Afghanistan, where a Sharia court has
just condemned a young journalism student to death for blasphemy for
looking up and distributing articles critical of Islam's treatment of
women. Sounds like a society where you would feel right at home--or maybe
not, as they allow marriages to underage girls there. Maybe you should
go over there and rail against their 'pedophile' activities, eh?)

> A lot of worried pedos around at the moment...

There are a lot of concerned civil libertarians as well.

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively
calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought--
not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought
we hate." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. US. v. Schwimmer


Baal <Ba...@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJHpqu7AAoJEAjjY4weksDodYoH/1UJvjfMtpm4B0u5akCMcst/
gnOgQ8gSdiZGJFaXE4ay/D3z3uA2nxm69rfLoPnmcfQe9Mf65PFwiPen3EELJMOv
/y8yfI8CkhwZ3a4ex/MdcyA0tBi+dlKzl73Udh8UWPaR1+gt7tCV3+62RzNiND/Z
LQhQrIoBmiX49YDp1Tb98sAehsznhKdBBYLCJg9UVP4RInobH9hKShlGniA7Suav
ZiRhUau62ofdYIevf6TFuxBBlyq3Xm7pdUn6Nd4qMz59d8cUf9iGC5VYEt10DMKe
PTTvyA7EDqhBZXntYZkVBZUA7rSL7vlv3YDid6M8FGcgk5gcipEr4JwUia3O02E=
=Aqms
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message has been deleted

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 4, 2008, 4:00:02 PM2/4/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:08:27 +0100 (CET), Baal
> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA512
> >
> >Brandon D Cartwright wrote in alt.fan.frank.mccoy on Sunday 03 February
> >2008 21:34 in Message-ID: <i4tcq3dub524cbvq1...@4ax.com>:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> IMO his only hope of avoiding dying in jail is to plead guilty and
> >> co-operate with the prosecutor to nail the other members of his child
> >> pornography group..
> >
> >How many fucking times do you have to be told that the U.S. child
> >pornography statute DOES NOT COVER TEXT? Given the number of times that
> >you continue to repeat the same incorrect information again and again,
> >I can only conclude that you are being willfully and deliberately ignorant.
>
> How many fucking times do you have to be told that pornographic
> descriptions of toddlers being fucked by adults ..produced for
> pedophiles to masturbate to *IS* child pornography whatever the
> current US legal definitions..
---------------------------------
So you dislike the American definitions of obscenity (pornography is
NOT defined in law). You should definitely emigrate to somewhere more
frightening to you.


> >Just because you WISH that the law covered text, will not make it so.
> >If you wish to live in a jurisdiction that /does/ classify text as child
> >pornography, move to Canada.
>

> Whether McCoy is a child pornographer is dependent upon where he lives
> in your book eh?
------------------------------
In OUR "book" NOBODY is a "child pornographer" who simply writes
stories~!


> > (Or Afghanistan, where a Sharia court has
> >just condemned a young journalism student to death for blasphemy for
> >looking up and distributing articles critical of Islam's treatment of
> >women. Sounds like a society where you would feel right at home--or maybe
> >not, as they allow marriages to underage girls there. Maybe you should
> >go over there and rail against their 'pedophile' activities, eh?)
>

> Sounds like your racism is creeping out from under your mask more
> like...
--------------------------
Sounds like YOU have NO FUCKING IDEA of the nature of those cultures!



> Of course pedophiles are executed in Afghanistan aren't they?
---------------------------
No, under Sharia law pedophilia is a male relative's right!


> >> A lot of worried pedos around at the moment...
> >
> >There are a lot of concerned civil libertarians as well.
>

> On the contrary they are conspicuous by their absence..
>
> Frank has been disappeared...and is no longer news worth discussing
> for most folk..
------------------------------
This will change.
Steve

bobandcarole

unread,
Feb 4, 2008, 9:44:48 PM2/4/08
to
On Feb 4, 3:03�am, Brandon D Cartwright <u...@example.net> wrote:
> On Mon, �4 Feb 2008 08:08:27 +0100 (CET), Baal
>
>
>
>
>
> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA512
>
> >Brandon D Cartwright wrote in alt.fan.frank.mccoyon Sunday 03 February
> >2008 21:34 in Message-ID: <i4tcq3dub524cbvq16vs1lqcjkip49k...@4ax.com>:

>
> >[snip]
>
> >> IMO his only hope of avoiding dying in jail is to plead guilty and
> >> co-operate with the prosecutor to nail the other members of his child
> >> pornography group..
>
> >How many fucking times do you have to be told that the U.S. child
> >pornography statute DOES NOT COVER TEXT? Given the number of times that
> >you continue to repeat the same incorrect information again and again,
> >I can only conclude that you are being willfully and deliberately ignorant.
>
> How many fucking times do you have to be told that pornographic
> descriptions of toddlers being fucked by adults ..produced for
> pedophiles to masturbate to *IS* �child pornography whatever the
> current US �legal definitions..
>
> >Just because you WISH that the law covered text, will not make it so.
> >If you wish to live in a jurisdiction that /does/ classify text as child
> >pornography, move to Canada.
>
> WhetherMcCoyis a child pornographer is dependent upon where he lives
> in your book eh?
>

> > (Or Afghanistan, where a Sharia court has
> >just condemned a young journalism student to death for blasphemy for
> >looking up and distributing articles critical of Islam's treatment of
> >women. Sounds like a society where you would feel right at home--or maybe
> >not, as they allow marriages to underage girls there. Maybe you should
> >go over there and rail against their 'pedophile' activities, eh?)
>
> Sounds like your racism is creeping out from under your mask more
> like...
>
> Of course pedophiles are executed in Afghanistan aren't they?
>
> >> A lot of worried pedos around at the moment...
>
> >There are a lot of concerned civil libertarians as well.
>
> On the contrary they are conspicuous by their absence..
>
> Frankhas been disappeared...and is no longer news worth discussing
> for most folk..

He's in this very thread, 8 posts above this one.....


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

ªºªandcarole®

unread,
Feb 5, 2008, 9:42:58 AM2/5/08
to
On Feb 5, 2:57�am, Brandon D Cartwright <u...@example.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:44:48 -0800 (PST), bobandcarole
>
>
>
>
>
> <bobandcarole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 4, 3:03?am, Brandon D Cartwright <u...@example.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, ?4 Feb 2008 08:08:27 +0100 (CET), Baal

>
> >> <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >Hash: SHA512
>
> >> >Brandon D Cartwright wrote in alt.fan.frank.mccoyon Sunday 03 February
> >> >2008 21:34 in Message-ID: <i4tcq3dub524cbvq16vs1lqcjkip49k...@4ax.com>:
>
> >> >[snip]
>
> >> >> IMO his only hope of avoiding dying in jail is to plead guilty and
> >> >> co-operate with the prosecutor to nail the other members of his child
> >> >> pornography group..
>
> >> >How many fucking times do you have to be told that the U.S. child
> >> >pornography statute DOES NOT COVER TEXT? Given the number of times that
> >> >you continue to repeat the same incorrect information again and again,
> >> >I can only conclude that you are being willfully and deliberately ignorant.
>
> >> How many fucking times do you have to be told that pornographic
> >> descriptions of toddlers being fucked by adults ..produced for
> >> pedophiles to masturbate to *IS* ?child pornography whatever the
> >> current US ?legal definitions..

>
> >> >Just because you WISH that the law covered text, will not make it so.
> >> >If you wish to live in a jurisdiction that /does/ classify text as child
> >> >pornography, move to Canada.
>
> >> WhetherMcCoyis a child pornographer is dependent upon where he lives
> >> in your book eh?
>
> >> > (Or Afghanistan, where a Sharia court has
> >> >just condemned a young journalism student to death for blasphemy for
> >> >looking up and distributing articles critical of Islam's treatment of
> >> >women. Sounds like a society where you would feel right at home--or maybe
> >> >not, as they allow marriages to underage girls there. Maybe you should
> >> >go over there and rail against their 'pedophile' activities, eh?)
>
> >> Sounds like your racism is creeping out from under your mask more
> >> like...
>
> >> Of course pedophiles are executed in Afghanistan aren't they?
>
> >> >> A lot of worried pedos around at the moment...
>
> >> >There are a lot of concerned civil libertarians as well.
>
> >> On the contrary they are conspicuous by their absence..
>
> >> Frankhas been disappeared...and is no longer news worth discussing
> >> for most folk..
>
> >He's in this very thread, 8 posts above this one.....
>
> Yeah...that's one of the last posts he made before he disappeared..
>
> The very last one was made three hours before he got on a bus to
> Georgia to surrender himself to the Grand Jury...
>
> He hasn't been heard from since..

They all get caught eventually......

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 5, 2008, 11:25:23 AM2/5/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:44:48 -0800 (PST), bobandcarole
> <bobandc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Frankhas been disappeared...and is no longer news worth discussing
> >> for most folk..
> >
> >He's in this very thread, 8 posts above this one.....
>
> Yeah...that's one of the last posts he made before he disappeared..
>
> The very last one was made three hours before he got on a bus to
> Georgia to surrender himself to the Grand Jury...
>
> He hasn't been heard from since..
----------------------
Pretty specious.

So now your irrational political cowardice has led you to wish for
people to be "disappeared" in this country, and to threaten others
with that if they don't obey you and your twisted religious sickness!

You must not think you could ever get people to agree with you any
other way. And you're undoubtedly right, you couldn't!!
Steve

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 5, 2008, 11:33:11 AM2/5/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

>
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:00:02 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >> How many fucking times do you have to be told that pornographic
> >> descriptions of toddlers being fucked by adults ..produced for
> >> pedophiles to masturbate to *IS* child pornography whatever the
> >> current US legal definitions..
> >---------------------------------
> >So you dislike the American definitions of obscenity (pornography is
> >NOT defined in law). You should definitely emigrate to somewhere more
> >frightening to you.
> >
> >> >Just because you WISH that the law covered text, will not make it so.
> >> >If you wish to live in a jurisdiction that /does/ classify text as child
> >> >pornography, move to Canada.
> >>
> >> Whether McCoy is a child pornographer is dependent upon where he lives
> >> in your book eh?
> >------------------------------
> >In OUR "book" NOBODY is a "child pornographer" who simply writes
> >stories!

> >
> >> > (Or Afghanistan, where a Sharia court has
> >> >just condemned a young journalism student to death for blasphemy for
> >> >looking up and distributing articles critical of Islam's treatment of
> >> >women. Sounds like a society where you would feel right at home--or maybe
> >> >not, as they allow marriages to underage girls there. Maybe you should
> >> >go over there and rail against their 'pedophile' activities, eh?)
> >>
> >> Sounds like your racism is creeping out from under your mask more
> >> like...
> >--------------------------
> >Sounds like YOU have NO FUCKING IDEA of the nature of those cultures!
>
> No that would be a bigoted jackass such as yourself..
------------------------
So you DEFEND Islamic Sharia Fascism, eh? You need to be tied upside
down in a sack in Gitmo for a while, terrorist!


> >> Of course pedophiles are executed in Afghanistan aren't they?
> >---------------------------
> >No, under Sharia law pedophilia is a male relative's right!
>

> Only in your mentally diseased brain..
> back here on earth the reality is rather different of course..
---------------------------------
Your insane devitation from what hundreds of women have written about
Islam makes you an obvious looney!


> You still don't get it...
>
> NOBODY likes pedophiles or parents that fuck their own children..
> It will never be legal anywhere on earth..
----------------------
That's merely your desperate mantra.


> They don't seem to think too much of incest either..
>
> Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against
> children
----------------------------
InterPol has no legilative power. The nations of Europe barely manage
to cooperate except to extradite for crimes all the nations agree on.
And it still requires a court to do it. InterPol is seen to be pretty
lame, once examined.


> Saudi Arabia is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Sharia).
------------------------------
Sure. Problem being that in practice the head of the family has the
ultimate say, and women's tales are regarded as nothing.
Steve

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 6, 2008, 11:37:47 AM2/6/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
>
> would you believe some pedos actually convinced themselves that a jury
> or ordinary folk would not find McCoy's demented filth about adults
> fucking toddlers obscene?
>
> incredible!
------------------------
You're whistling past the graveyard of your sick religion.

It doesn't matter what some jury wants, the protections of the
Constitution stand as a balance against your ignorant mob-ism.
Steve

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 6, 2008, 11:41:24 AM2/6/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:

>
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:25:23 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
> <rst...@armory.com> wrote:
>
> >Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:44:48 -0800 (PST), bobandcarole
> >> <bobandc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Frankhas been disappeared...and is no longer news worth discussing
> >> >> for most folk..
> >> >
> >> >He's in this very thread, 8 posts above this one.....
> >>
> >> Yeah...that's one of the last posts he made before he disappeared..
> >>
> >> The very last one was made three hours before he got on a bus to
> >> Georgia to surrender himself to the Grand Jury...
> >>
> >> He hasn't been heard from since..
> >----------------------
> >Pretty specious.
> >
> >So now your irrational political cowardice has led you to wish for
> >people to be "disappeared" in this country, and to threaten others
> >with that if they don't obey you and your twisted religious sickness!
>
> Did I say I *wished* for this?
>
> Nope...I said I wish he had been publicly named and shamed..

>
> >
> >You must not think you could ever get people to agree with you any
> >other way. And you're undoubtedly right, you couldn't!!
>
> The point is for child pornographers to be stopped.
>
> Apart from perverts such as yourself agreement that this should happen
> is near universal..
-----------------------------
Only among people who believe everything that TV tells them, and they
are so stupid that they don't participate in decision-making or vote.

The reason we have a bill of rights is to prevent the formation of
private armed pluralities who execute anyone who denies them their
rights!!
Steve

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 6, 2008, 11:42:34 AM2/6/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 08:33:11 -0800, "R. Steve Walz"
> Is this nonsense the best you can do?
>
> Face it you are wrong and even Afghanistan would not be a safe haven
> for you and your kind..

>
> >
> >
> >> >> Of course pedophiles are executed in Afghanistan aren't they?
> >> >---------------------------
> >> >No, under Sharia law pedophilia is a male relative's right!
> >>
> >> Only in your mentally diseased brain..
> >> back here on earth the reality is rather different of course..
> >---------------------------------
> >Your insane devitation from what hundreds of women have written about
> >Islam makes you an obvious looney!
>
> It's the sharia Law as per Interpol...
>
> Afghanistan executes pedophiles all your raving and insane accusations
> doesn't alter that..

> >
> >
> >> You still don't get it...
> >>
> >> NOBODY likes pedophiles or parents that fuck their own children..
> >> It will never be legal anywhere on earth..
> >----------------------
> >That's merely your desperate mantra.
>
> nothing desperate it's codified in law world wide.

>
> >
> >
> >> They don't seem to think too much of incest either..
> >>
> >> Legislation of Interpol member states on sexual offences against
> >> children
> >----------------------------
> >InterPol has no legilative power. The nations of Europe barely manage
> >to cooperate except to extradite for crimes all the nations agree on.
> >And it still requires a court to do it. InterPol is seen to be pretty
> >lame, once examined.
>
> INTERPOL's brief is far wider than European..
> once again you pontificate about matter you are ignorant of..
>
> All of which is beside the point that Islamic countries..like any
> others..have severe penalties against pedophiles.

>
> >> Saudi Arabia is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Sharia).
> >------------------------------
> >Sure. Problem being that in practice the head of the family has the
> >ultimate say, and women's tales are regarded as nothing.
>
> Sexual offences against children are punished severely under Sharia
> Law
> up to and including public beheading.
------------------------
You're delusional.
Steve

James Riske

unread,
Feb 16, 2008, 4:12:53 PM2/16/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 05:40:07 -0800 (PST), "ŠšŠandcaroleŪ"
> <bobandc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>> On Jan 13, 10:55?pm, Lurker <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:07:20 -0800 (PST), mcc...@millcomm.com wrote:
>>>> I posted a story (most of which *I* wrote) to a discussion-group on a
>>>> BBS which connected to something I wasn't really familiar with, called
>>>> a newsgroup: alt.sex.stories, I think it was.
>>>> The story, because of the limited access provided by the BBS (less
>>>> than 32K at a time, I think, was posted in about 120 truly *horrible
>>>> parts; but the *response* was tremendous ... (most people asking for
>>>> missing parts; "PLEASE post part # XXX-XXZ ... My newsreader didn't
>>>> get those!"
>>>> The story was titled, "Her Father's Daughter"; but because of a
>>>> mistake in the title, most thought it was something like: Father's
>>>> Daugther" instead.
>>>> At the time, there was no other story *anywhere* in the world, in
>>>> print, on the net, newsgroups, or elsewhere like it: ?It was (like all

>>>> the stories I've posted since, a *LOVE STORY* masquerading as humor
>>>> and sex-story ... LOTS of sex! ?I *tried* to include about every taboo

>>>> then existing for erotic stories, including most-especially: incest,
>>>> pregnancy, and yes, "pedophilia"; or young people having and enjoying
>>>> sex and even full-term pregnancy as a way of expressing that love.
>>>> It was a hit, far beyond anything I ever imagined. ?I got several

>>>> *thousand* emails and responses; praising the story for it's
>>>> vividness, it's love, its reality, its humor, and yes (most
>>>> importantly to *me* at least) its value and wonder as a *story*.
>>>> However, as explained in both the preamble and afterword of the story,
>>>> i *really* expected this story, pure fantasy mind, to have the Police
>>>> banging at my door, charging me with "disseminating Child Pornography"
>>>> or something equally silly, considering that no real child was
>>>> involved or documented; and the story was pure *text*!
>>>> Still, there are thousands if not millions of blue-noses out there
>>>> that *hate* anything having to do with that Devil's Invention: SEX!
>>>> Still, for year after year I kept posting NEW stories about the same
>>>> subject; but never so huge or complete. ?I also kept expecting the

>>>> same "Bang! Bang! Bang!" on the door from the police; but nothing ever
>>>> happened. ?It was actually quite a disappointment in a way; because I

>>>> *wanted* the story(s) to be challenged in court on the constitutional
>>>> issue.
>>>> Also, in newsgroups and other places; particularly assd, I kept
>>>> posting a challenge to those who claimed my stories were illegal
>>>> "child porn": Put up or shut up. ?Nobody "put up"

>>>> All this time I posted under my own REAL name, not an alias or other
>>>> hiding device, using my own real email address which I have paid
>>>> through the nose to keep during all these years. ?I've told people
>>>> where I lived; and that I am in the phone-book. ?I've invited anybody
>>>> to correspond with me, or even call me on the phone. ?So far, in 14

>>>> years, only one person ever did.
>>>> During the last year or so I've gotten tired. ?I still *compose* sex-

>>>> stories in my mind; and sometimes even enter them on the computer; but
>>>> I rarely go to the extra trouble of cleaning them up enough to post
>>>> and actually post them. ?I haven't stopped exactly; I've more like
>>>> paused. ?For the past half dozen months I've been too preocuppied with

>>>> my wife being sick with cancer (lymphoma) to actually post *any*
>>>> stories at all.
>>>> I *have* however, posted comments and opinions to various newsgroups;
>>>> often twitting the anti-sex groups; saying my stories are legal.
>>>> Last Wednesday, (probably a month or two before that, actully) it
>>>> seems somebody decided to "put up" and see what they could do about
>>>> this annoying McCoy person. ?At 10:00 in the morning, while I was

>>>> heading (naked) out to the kitchen to get morning medications for my
>>>> wife (and myself too) there was that "Bang! Bang! Bang!" on the door
>>>> that I had really expected 14 long years before. ?"Police!" came the
>>>> yell: "Open up!"
>>>> Not wanting the door broken down, I did ... Nudity and all. ?Outside

>>>> were *SEVEN* huge cops in black outfits, yes really prepared with a
>>>> huge steel pole to break the door in! ?As if I was some fully armed

>>>> drug-dealer about to fight it out with my cancer-ridden wife stumbling
>>>> out of the bedroom, barely able to stand, while they were chaining me
>>>> .... ?OOPS!
>>>> Sorry! ?The Internet Cafe I'm posting this from closes at SIX, not
>>>> NINE. ?I'll have to complete it from someplace else. ?I understand

>>>> there's a local IC closer to home than this one; that's open 'till
>>>> nine.
>>>> If not, the rest of this saga might have to wait.
>>>> Forgive the .sig not being mine.
>>>> Please post to assd and perhaps ac.
>>>> I've got to go.
>>>> (Not having my own computer right now.)
>>>> Frank
>> Did pedo mccoy finally get what he/it deserves?
>
> Federal marshals raided him...took his computer and dragged him away
> in chains to jail.
>
> He was released on his own recognizance to appear before the Georgia
> Grand Jury charged with "transporting obscenity".
>
> nobody has heard from him since..with the zero tolerance policy
> of Georgia towards child pornographers and pedophiles it's probable
> his bail was revoked and he is back in prison.

>
> IMO his only hope of avoiding dying in jail is to plead guilty and
> co-operate with the prosecutor to nail the other members of his child
> pornography group..
>
> A lot of worried pedos around at the moment...
>
> :)


As it should be, knowing that pedophile Frank is going down brings a
warm smile to my face, all pedophiles should be trembling right about now.

Let this be a lesson to you sickos, normal humans despise you, molesting
a child is wrong and you will pay for your crimes if caught.
Personally I believe a pedophile should be executed for its first
offense, sadly we live in a world full of cowering pussies who wont let
that sort of justice happen.

Pedophiles take my advice, just commit suicide and get it over with, you
will be running and hiding from the law for the rest of your pathetic
lives anyways so you may as well just do yourselves in and be done with
it, save the children from your perverted clutches, if you really "love"
them then you would kill yourselves without any hesitation.


--
Frodo: "Why do you do that?"

Sam: "What?"

Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."

Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
but lies and deceit.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Message has been deleted

ªºªandcarole(R)(tm)

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 11:26:11 AM2/18/08
to
On Feb 18, 7:49�am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:12:53 -0500, James Riske
> <james.ri...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> Well look who just reared his ugly head. I see your attitude and
> manners have not changed since I last saw a post by you.

Yes, he's as relevant and welcome as ever.

> Do you have evidence that Frank is a peadophile or are you just
> guessing? I suspect the latter.

franks own posts prove that he is attracted to very young girls.
That's all we need to know to denounce and humiliate him.

> I must admit that I am impressed that you didn't actually use any
> profanity in this post.

Are you anxious to be called a kiddiefucker again?
I'll gladly remedy that faux pax......

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 3:03:11 PM2/18/08
to
的泳ndcarole(R)(tm) wrote:
>
> franks own posts prove that he is attracted to very young girls.
> That's all we need to know to denounce and humiliate him.
------------------------
Irrelevant. If everyone who was went to jail, nobody would be left
outside it!! Why do you think you guilty little cretins keep yelling
and calling names, you're desperate to prove you're NOT, you obviously
protesteth TOO MUCH! Anyway, ideas are NOT crimes, any more than crime
novels are crimes!
Steve
Message has been deleted

James Riske

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 4:16:13 PM2/18/08
to
David wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:12:53 -0500, James Riske
> <james...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:
> Well look who just reared his ugly head. I see your attitude and
> manners have not changed since I last saw a post by you.

Being that it is perfectly normal and natural for a human to despise a
pedophile there is no reason to change any "attitude" or "manners" when
addressing them.

>
> Do you have evidence that Frank is a peadophile or are you just
> guessing? I suspect the latter.

There have been many posts by pedo Frank showing that Frank is indeed a
pedophile, one of pedo Frank's more convicting posts would be where
Frank claimed Lean Rhimms to be sexually attractive at age 13 and then
Frank concluded that the vast majority of adults would also consider her
to be sexually attractive at that age, thus making the wild and
outlandish claim that most adult males are pedophiles "by definition".

Of course pedo Frank was humiliated and shown to be a bald-faced liar as
usual.


>
> I must admit that I am impressed that you didn't actually use any

> profanity in this post. Have you been studying to improve your
> vocabulary? If so, well done.


When addressing despicable pedophiles "profanity" is often required, and
believe me asshole, there's a lot of it to go around, flattery will only
get you humiliated.

Rick Pikul

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 7:03:27 PM2/19/08
to
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske wrote:

> There have been many posts by pedo Frank showing that Frank is indeed a
> pedophile, one of pedo Frank's more convicting posts would be where
> Frank claimed Lean Rhimms to be sexually attractive at age 13 and then
> Frank concluded that the vast majority of adults would also consider her
> to be sexually attractive at that age, thus making the wild and
> outlandish claim that most adult males are pedophiles "by definition".

Except for the slight problem that simply finding a young, possibly
pubescent, person sexually attractive is not enough to be a pedophile.
Heck, even finding a clearly pre-pubescent sexually attractive isn't
enough.

Like all paraphilias, it is required that either the person acts on the
sexual desire for pre-pubescent children, (i.e. has, or attempts to have,
actual sexual contact), the desires cause significant mental distress or
the desires cause significant difficulty interacting with general society.

> --
> Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
>
> Sam: "What?"
>
> Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
>
> Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
> but lies and deceit.

Thank goodness I have a milspec irony meter.

--
Phoenix

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

R. Steve Walz

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 5:00:03 PM2/20/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> However pornographic portrayals of adults having sex with infants
> are..
-----------------------
You mean photographic portrayals, and hoping no one will notice the
difference. If you ban people from writing about factual or fictional
experiences with their own youthful sexual activities, whether they
enjoyed them or it was an assault and rape, you will silence even
victims from speaking up, and from their own recovery.
Steve
Message has been deleted

Poison Ivan

unread,
Feb 20, 2008, 5:34:57 PM2/20/08
to
"David" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:vi6rr3p50v7uiq1p7...@4ax.com...
> Except that the Supreme Court has already ruled that stories are not
> pornographic.

I assume you mean "obscene" instead of "pornographic."

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd be I'd like to see a citation to where
the Supreme Court said this. I spent a fair amount of time flailing around
in search engines trying to find any such ruling, but couldn't find one.

In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court specifically states that written
works *can* be obscene, if they satisify the three Miller Test conditions. I
know law enforcement agencies haven't pursued written works for a long time,
forussing their energies on pictures and video, but that doesn't mean the
courts have ruled on the legality of written works. It just means the police
have been busy with other things.

Poison Ivan
^ doubts the Supreme Court has ruled on this, but hopes he's wrong

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Poison Ivan

unread,
Feb 22, 2008, 1:36:13 PM2/22/08
to
"David" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:296tr390e6jp052ll...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:34:57 -0500, "Poison Ivan"
> <pois...@desdmona.com> typed furiously:

>
>>"David" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:vi6rr3p50v7uiq1p7...@4ax.com...
>>> Except that the Supreme Court has already ruled that stories are not
>>> pornographic.
>>
>>I assume you mean "obscene" instead of "pornographic."
>>
> No, I said "pornographic" which was apparently limited by the Supreme
> Court to pictorial representations.

You're confused about your terminology. All speech is not protected. You
can't libel somebody, you can't use fighting words, and you can't incite
riots. Those are all restrictions on free speech. "Obscenity" is also one of
those time-honored restrictions on free speech. By its legal definition,
"obscene" speech is always illegal and can be banned. "Pornography" is n0t a
legal term, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

Law enforcement has focussed its obscenity enforcement on pictorial
representations over the past several decades, but I believe that was just a
decision based on priorities, not on law. So I'm pretty sure you also have
your facts wrong. The Supreme Court has never said written works are
protected by the First Amendment. Read the text of "Miller v. California"
and you'll see the Supreme Court specifically states that written words
*can* be obscene, if they satisfy all the other conditions of obscenity.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone can provide me a court
citation. That was my original question. Has there been a court ruling
since Miller v. California that over-rides Miller v.California? I can't find
one, but maybe a person with better search skills than me can.

> Most of the emphasis is on prosecuting pictorial images since it is
> widely accepted that text falls in the domain of the First Amendment.

I used to think this, too. I beginning to think that it's just another urban
legend.

Poison Ivan
^ suspects he's wasting his time with this explanation

H. Jekyll

unread,
Feb 22, 2008, 4:43:20 PM2/22/08
to
On Feb 22, 1:36 pm, "Poison Ivan" <poison...@desdmona.com> wrote:

> I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if someone can provide me a court
> citation. That was my original question.  Has there been a court ruling
> since Miller v. California that over-rides Miller v.California? I can't find
> one, but maybe a person with better search skills than me can.
>
> > Most of the emphasis is on prosecuting pictorial images since it is
> > widely accepted that text falls in the domain of the First Amendment.
>
> I used to think this, too. I beginning to think that it's just another urban
> legend.
>
> Poison Ivan
> ^ suspects he's wasting his time with this explanation

==> You may be wasting your time, PI, but you're basically correct.
There is *one* court case that gives speech more protection than
images, and that deals with child porn. It is illegal to even
*possess* images or videos of children being sexed or hurt (or, in
some cases, merely naked). However, the court ruled in "Ashcroft vs
Free Speech Coalition" that only real images of children were unlawful
to possess, not "virtual" images. Anything less that a real image is
not child porn and so it may lawfully be possessed. Obviously that
includes text. Frank's pedo stories are not kiddie porn.

==> Other than that, text has no special protection. The Feds have
seldom tried to indict pure text, and they have generally failed. In
addition, the text of other recent SC decisions seems clearly to give
publication or porn over the Internet some promise of protection. What
has surprised me in the Red Rose (Karen Fletcher) and Frank McCoy
cases, is that authorities who have been reluctant to take on images
of actual sex, including some reasonably extreme sex, now indict
purveyers of pure fantasy. Larry Flynt and the Marriot Hotel chain are
safe, but Frank McCoy is being prosecuted in Georgia for stories
posted in Minnesota!

Henry

Poison Ivan

unread,
Feb 23, 2008, 12:01:44 AM2/23/08
to
"H. Jekyll" <h_jeky...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d829e872-cec8-4ae3...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 22, 1:36 pm, "Poison Ivan" <poison...@desdmona.com> wrote:

> ==> You may be wasting your time, PI, but you're basically correct.
> There is *one* court case that gives speech more protection than
> images, and that deals with child porn. It is illegal to even
> *possess* images or videos of children being sexed or hurt (or, in
> some cases, merely naked). However, the court ruled in "Ashcroft vs
> Free Speech Coalition" that only real images of children were unlawful
> to possess, not "virtual" images. Anything less that a real image is
> not child porn and so it may lawfully be possessed. Obviously that
> includes text. Frank's pedo stories are not kiddie porn.

Just to be clear ... the kiddie porn laws and the obscenity laws are not
related to one another. There are two different ways a work could be
illegal: it could be kiddie porn, or it could be obscene. (Or I suppose it
could be both.)

The court ruling you cite here requires there to be a victim before the
kiddie porn laws kick in. But it says nothing whatsoever about obscenity.

> What
> has surprised me in the Red Rose (Karen Fletcher) and Frank McCoy
> cases, is that authorities who have been reluctant to take on images
> of actual sex, including some reasonably extreme sex, now indict
> purveyers of pure fantasy. Larry Flynt and the Marriot Hotel chain are
> safe, but Frank McCoy is being prosecuted in Georgia for stories
> posted in Minnesota!

I think what you're seeing is the predictable outcome of the "Ashcroft v.
Free Speech Coalition" ruling. Since they can't get authors of fiction on
kiddie porn charges, the only other option is to get 'em on obscenity.

Poison Ivan
^ thinks the Miller Test is outdated

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

ªºªandcarole®

unread,
Feb 23, 2008, 8:41:26 AM2/23/08
to
On Feb 23, 8:13�am, Brandon D Cartwright <u...@example.net> wrote:

> Indeed "TomBa" has convictions for child pornography

I would love to read what you have on that topic!!
That's probably why that ass pimple doesn't rear
its ugly head much anymore.

Message has been deleted

H. Jekyll

unread,
Feb 23, 2008, 12:51:30 PM2/23/08
to
On Feb 23, 12:01 am, "Poison Ivan" <poison...@desdmona.com> wrote:
> Just to be clear ... the kiddie porn laws and the obscenity laws are not
> related to one another.

==> Right. I brought it up just because of the question hereabouts
about whether text had "special protection." In only this one,
specific way -- there not being an actual victim, so kiddie porn laws
don't apply -- one could say it does. Otherwise, ixnay. I figured the
people who think the US courts have explicitly granted text extra
protection were somewhat aware of Ashcroft vs FSC but were
misconstruing it.

> There are two different ways a work could be illegal: it could be kiddie porn, or it could be obscene. (Or I suppose it could be both.)

==> I'd say kiddie porn is almost always obscene, but there are those
arrests that have been made because of photos of innocent, naked
children, where there doesn't appear to be any sexual context or abuse
of any kind. The kinds of arrests that scream "Barney Phyfe."


> The court ruling you cite here requires there to be a victim before the
> kiddie porn laws kick in. But it says nothing whatsoever about obscenity.

==> Right. We're on the same page.

> > What
> > has surprised me in the Red Rose (Karen Fletcher) and Frank McCoy
> > cases, is that authorities who have been reluctant to take on images
> > of actual sex, including some reasonably extreme sex, now indict
> > purveyers of pure fantasy. Larry Flynt and the Marriot Hotel chain are
> > safe, but Frank McCoy is being prosecuted in Georgia for stories
> > posted in Minnesota!
>
> I think what you're seeing is the predictable outcome of the "Ashcroft v.
> Free Speech Coalition" ruling. Since they can't get authors of fiction on
> kiddie porn charges, the only other option is to get 'em on obscenity.

==> Could be. That does make sense. There isn't a de jure connection
between the two things, but there's a social or psychological
connection, so prosecutors work to get them on *something*. Here's a
more sinister idea (that I'm not wedded to): pedo story prosecutions
are the camel's nose inside the tent of porn. The stories disgust a
great many people, and they're posted by small fry who can't afford
big legal teams. They're the soft underbelly of the sexual expression
industry.


> Poison Ivan
> ^ thinks the Miller Test is outdated

==> The Miller Test was formulated to replace a more politically
liberal "utterly without redeeming social value" test (the Roth test,
I believe it was called--could be wrong on the name). They felt the
previous test would make it virtually impossible to prosecute sexual
(or "excretory") content. In dissent, Justice Douglas argued that the
court was basically passing an ex post facto law, allowing a person to
be prosecuted and convicted for violating a standard that didn't exist
at the time of the alleged offense. Also, since there is no clear
standard in place (everything depends on what a "community standard"
is and what constitutes "artistic" or "literary" etc. value), one
can't absolutely know if his or her product is obscene until it is
successfully prosecuted.

Henry

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

ªºªandcarole®

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 4:30:28 PM2/24/08
to
On Feb 25, 10:31�am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:37:12 -0500, James Riske
> <james.ri...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:16:02 -0800, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:26:40 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
> >>> <u...@example.net> typed furiously:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:21:01 -0800, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:35:15 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
> >>>>> <u...@example.net> typed furiously:
>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:55:21 -0800, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske
> >>>>>>> <james.ri...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:
> >>>>>>>> When addressing despicable pedophiles "profanity" is often required, and
> >>>>>>>> believe me asshole, there's a lot of it to go around, flattery will only
> >>>>>>>> get you humiliated.
>
> >>>>>>> ROTFL. Once again you show that you cannot carry on an intelligent
> >>>>>>> conversation since your vocabulary is so limited that you have to
> >>>>>>> resort to expletives, profanity and obscenity.
> >>>>>> But you are all in favor of obscenity David..you think it an injustice
> >>>>>> that Frank McCoy was dragged in chains from his home to face justice
> >>>>>> and the Georgia Grand Jury for his disgusting filth about pedophiles
> >>>>>> fucking small children .
> >>>>> I do. I think it was overkill. They could have just asked him politely
> >>>>> to attend.
>
> >>>>> His writings are not as you describe.
> >>>> sure they are..and he doesn't deny it..just says they are consensual..
>
> >>>> only you oddly deny it.
>
> >>> I said they were not as you describe. That does not mean they were not
> >>> graphically descriptive.
>
> >>>>> You obviously have never read
> >>>>> one of his stories. Once again you are relying on hearsay by other
> >>>>> people to make up your small mind for you.
> >>>> Not at all ...that would clearly be you describing yourself
> >>>> perfectly..
>
> >>> But I have read many of Frank's stories so I am talking from first
> >>> hand knowledge whereas you are talking from hearsay. That is always
> >>> dangerous.
>
> >>>>> Just like the time you
> >>>>> claimed that some pictures were obscene pornography when they turned
> >>>>> out to be pictures of boys, mainly, fully clothed.
> >>>> Incorrect...
>
> >>>> The binaries I refererred to were hard core
> >>>> pornography videos of children being abused by adults...
>
> >>> No! You were quite specific until 4sooth corrected you and described
> >>> the pictures about which you were complaining. You eventually backed
> >>> down and, for once, admitted that you could have been wrong.
>
> >>>> Pedophiles lie continuously ..
>
> >>>> Ask Kasmir..
> >>> The only person who lies continuously on any of these groups is you.
>
> >> Lying scoundrel you are..
>
> >> Message-ID: <20030720231813.434...@newsreader.com>
>
> >> Quote:
>
> >> I'm posting this for all the guys who have written me. �This is a 100%
> >> free website which contains dozens and dozens of stories about very
> >> young little girls having sex with their fathers and older men. �All
> >> are written by Frank McCoy, and these stories are hot.
>
> >> �Example: A
>
> >> mother who takes off her 5 year old daughters underware so she can go
> >> fuck the man in the living room while she converses with the mans
> >> wife. �BTW, his real little daughter was sucking his cock until the 5
> >> y.o. arrives and is kind of irritated at the arrival of the little
> >> girl. �He picks up the 5 y.o. and carefully mounts her onto his cock.
> >> He has three huge orgasms in her as they watch TV together.
>
> >> Frank McCoy has created a world where pedos and sex with little girls
> >> is an accepted and welcomed part of culture. �Its pure mind candy.
> >> Heres the site:
>
> >>http://www.young-stuff/frank<REDACTED>
>
> >> end quote.
>
> >Good work Brandon, pedo David was shown to be an obvious liar.
>
> How would you know? It's nice to see that you support someone who
> posts a link to obscenity. Oh! Isn't that exactly what Frank McCoy is
> charged with?

A broken link just like your broken brain.

> Of course your intelligence is not very high as you have shown by your
> past posts where you use gratuitous obscenity to support you foul
> opinions.

He knows a pedo cocksucker when he smells one, so what?

James Riske

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 11:28:08 AM2/24/08
to
David wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:22:45 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
> <us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:57:29 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:53:17 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>> <us...@example.net> typed furiously:

>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:12:53 -0500, James Riske
>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 05:40:07 -0800 (PST), "ŠšŠandcaroleŪ"
>>>>>> <bobandc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 13, 10:55?pm, Lurker <nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:07:20 -0800 (PST), mcc...@millcomm.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I posted a story (most of which *I* wrote) to a discussion-group on a
>>>>>>>>> BBS which connected to something I wasn't really familiar with, called
>>>>>>>>> a newsgroup: alt.sex.stories, I think it was.
>>>>>>>>> The story, because of the limited access provided by the BBS (less
>>>>>>>>> than 32K at a time, I think, was posted in about 120 truly *horrible
>>>>>>>>> parts; but the *response* was tremendous ... (most people asking for
>>>>>>>>> missing parts; "PLEASE post part # XXX-XXZ ... My newsreader didn't
>>>>>>>>> get those!"
>>>>>>>>> The story was titled, "Her Father's Daughter"; but because of a
>>>>>>>>> mistake in the title, most thought it was something like: Father's
>>>>>>>>> Daugther" instead.
>>>>>>>>> At the time, there was no other story *anywhere* in the world, in
>>>>>>>>> print, on the net, newsgroups, or elsewhere like it: ?It was (like all
>>>>>>>>> the stories I've posted since, a *LOVE STORY* masquerading as humor
>>>>>>>>> and sex-story ... LOTS of sex! ?I *tried* to include about every taboo
>>>>>>>>> then existing for erotic stories, including most-especially: incest,
>>>>>>>>> pregnancy, and yes, "pedophilia"; or young people having and enjoying
>>>>>>>>> sex and even full-term pregnancy as a way of expressing that love.
>>>>>>>>> It was a hit, far beyond anything I ever imagined. ?I got several
>>>>>>>>> *thousand* emails and responses; praising the story for it's
>>>>>>>>> vividness, it's love, its reality, its humor, and yes (most
>>>>>>>>> importantly to *me* at least) its value and wonder as a *story*.
>>>>>>>>> However, as explained in both the preamble and afterword of the story,
>>>>>>>>> i *really* expected this story, pure fantasy mind, to have the Police
>>>>>>>>> banging at my door, charging me with "disseminating Child Pornography"
>>>>>>>>> or something equally silly, considering that no real child was
>>>>>>>>> involved or documented; and the story was pure *text*!
>>>>>>>>> Still, there are thousands if not millions of blue-noses out there
>>>>>>>>> that *hate* anything having to do with that Devil's Invention: SEX!
>>>>>>>>> Still, for year after year I kept posting NEW stories about the same
>>>>>>>>> subject; but never so huge or complete. ?I also kept expecting the
>>>>>>>>> same "Bang! Bang! Bang!" on the door from the police; but nothing ever
>>>>>>>>> happened. ?It was actually quite a disappointment in a way; because I
>>>>>>>>> *wanted* the story(s) to be challenged in court on the constitutional
>>>>>>>>> issue.
>>>>>>>>> Also, in newsgroups and other places; particularly assd, I kept
>>>>>>>>> posting a challenge to those who claimed my stories were illegal
>>>>>>>>> "child porn": Put up or shut up. ?Nobody "put up"
>>>>>>>>> All this time I posted under my own REAL name, not an alias or other
>>>>>>>>> hiding device, using my own real email address which I have paid
>>>>>>>>> through the nose to keep during all these years. ?I've told people
>>>>>>>>> where I lived; and that I am in the phone-book. ?I've invited anybody
>>>>>>>>> to correspond with me, or even call me on the phone. ?So far, in 14
>>>>>>>>> years, only one person ever did.
>>>>>>>>> During the last year or so I've gotten tired. ?I still *compose* sex-
>>>>>>>>> stories in my mind; and sometimes even enter them on the computer; but
>>>>>>>>> I rarely go to the extra trouble of cleaning them up enough to post
>>>>>>>>> and actually post them. ?I haven't stopped exactly; I've more like
>>>>>>>>> paused. ?For the past half dozen months I've been too preocuppied with
>>>>>>>>> my wife being sick with cancer (lymphoma) to actually post *any*
>>>>>>>>> stories at all.
>>>>>>>>> I *have* however, posted comments and opinions to various newsgroups;
>>>>>>>>> often twitting the anti-sex groups; saying my stories are legal.
>>>>>>>>> Last Wednesday, (probably a month or two before that, actully) it
>>>>>>>>> seems somebody decided to "put up" and see what they could do about
>>>>>>>>> this annoying McCoy person. ?At 10:00 in the morning, while I was
>>>>>>>>> heading (naked) out to the kitchen to get morning medications for my
>>>>>>>>> wife (and myself too) there was that "Bang! Bang! Bang!" on the door
>>>>>>>>> that I had really expected 14 long years before. ?"Police!" came the
>>>>>>>>> yell: "Open up!"
>>>>>>>>> Not wanting the door broken down, I did ... Nudity and all. ?Outside
>>>>>>>>> were *SEVEN* huge cops in black outfits, yes really prepared with a
>>>>>>>>> huge steel pole to break the door in! ?As if I was some fully armed
>>>>>>>>> drug-dealer about to fight it out with my cancer-ridden wife stumbling
>>>>>>>>> out of the bedroom, barely able to stand, while they were chaining me
>>>>>>>>> .... ?OOPS!
>>>>>>>>> Sorry! ?The Internet Cafe I'm posting this from closes at SIX, not
>>>>>>>>> NINE. ?I'll have to complete it from someplace else. ?I understand
>>>>>>>>> there's a local IC closer to home than this one; that's open 'till
>>>>>>>>> nine.
>>>>>>>>> If not, the rest of this saga might have to wait.
>>>>>>>>> Forgive the .sig not being mine.
>>>>>>>>> Please post to assd and perhaps ac.
>>>>>>>>> I've got to go.
>>>>>>>>> (Not having my own computer right now.)
>>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>> Did pedo mccoy finally get what he/it deserves?
>>>>>> Federal marshals raided him...took his computer and dragged him away
>>>>>> in chains to jail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He was released on his own recognizance to appear before the Georgia
>>>>>> Grand Jury charged with "transporting obscenity".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nobody has heard from him since..with the zero tolerance policy
>>>>>> of Georgia towards child pornographers and pedophiles it's probable
>>>>>> his bail was revoked and he is back in prison.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO his only hope of avoiding dying in jail is to plead guilty and
>>>>>> co-operate with the prosecutor to nail the other members of his child
>>>>>> pornography group..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of worried pedos around at the moment...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> As it should be, knowing that pedophile Frank is going down brings a
>>>>> warm smile to my face, all pedophiles should be trembling right about now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let this be a lesson to you sickos, normal humans despise you, molesting
>>>>> a child is wrong and you will pay for your crimes if caught.
>>>>> Personally I believe a pedophile should be executed for its first
>>>>> offense, sadly we live in a world full of cowering pussies who wont let
>>>>> that sort of justice happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pedophiles take my advice, just commit suicide and get it over with, you
>>>>> will be running and hiding from the law for the rest of your pathetic
>>>>> lives anyways so you may as well just do yourselves in and be done with
>>>>> it, save the children from your perverted clutches, if you really "love"
>>>>> them then you would kill yourselves without any hesitation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam: "What?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
>>>>> but lies and deceit.
>>>> Taking the fear out of children and parents and putting it in
>>>> pedophiles ..where it belongs..sure sounds good to me!
>>> Except that most child molestations are performed by parents or close
>>> friends.
>> There is no evidence for this claim that parents are responsible for
>> most sexual assaults..
>>
> But there is evidence of this. Kashmir has cited several studies which
> state exactly this.
>

Evasion.
Instead of blaming it on "Kashmir" why don't you substantiate it
yourself? claiming that so and so posted something is worthless without
a direct link to the post itself.


--
Frodo: "Why do you do that?"

Sam: "What?"

Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."

Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
but lies and deceit.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

James Riske

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 11:18:54 AM2/24/08
to
David wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske
> <james...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:

>
>> David wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:12:53 -0500, James Riske
>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:

>>>
>>>> Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 05:40:07 -0800 (PST), "ŠšŠandcaroleŪ"
>>>>> <bobandc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
> [...]

>>>> Pedophiles take my advice, just commit suicide and get it over with, you
>>>> will be running and hiding from the law for the rest of your pathetic
>>>> lives anyways so you may as well just do yourselves in and be done with
>>>> it, save the children from your perverted clutches, if you really "love"
>>>> them then you would kill yourselves without any hesitation.
>>>>
>>> Well look who just reared his ugly head. I see your attitude and
>>> manners have not changed since I last saw a post by you.
>> Being that it is perfectly normal and natural for a human to despise a
>> pedophile there is no reason to change any "attitude" or "manners" when
>> addressing them.
>>
> But you despise anyone who disagrees with you ... which is almost
> everybody. By now you must be the denizen of millions of kill files
> and filters.

False, I despise pedophiles, faggots, pedophile faggots and the liberals
who love them.


>>> Do you have evidence that Frank is a peadophile or are you just
>>> guessing? I suspect the latter.
>> There have been many posts by pedo Frank showing that Frank is indeed a
>> pedophile, one of pedo Frank's more convicting posts would be where
>> Frank claimed Lean Rhimms to be sexually attractive at age 13 and then
>> Frank concluded that the vast majority of adults would also consider her
>> to be sexually attractive at that age, thus making the wild and
>> outlandish claim that most adult males are pedophiles "by definition".
>>
> Many would have said that the Benet girl was sexually attractive too.

Prove it.

> This rather denies your theory. Not knowing who Lean Rhimms I cannot
> comment about her desirability but if she was pubertal or post
> pubertal then yes she would be attractive to most red-blooded males.

Prove it.

> Of course you don't fit that description, do you? Most red-blooded men
> would not dream of touching or molesting any child but that does not
> mean they do not think about having sex with any attractive girl.

I am not surprised that you side with the ouright lies of Frank Mccoy,
pedophiles must lie in order to convince other that there is nothing
wrong with them.

>
>> Of course pedo Frank was humiliated and shown to be a bald-faced liar as
>> usual.
>>
> You have never shown anyone to be a bald-faced liar nor have you ever
> humiliated anyone. Everyone, who reads your maunderings and there must
> be precious few of them left now, laughs at your ignorance and wishful
> thinking.

Each and every pedophile that I have addressed in this group has been
beaten and humiliated by me, some of them have even disappeared
altogether due to the level of humiliation I have given to them.

Where is Secret Squirrel? where is Orion? where is Damion Perez? the
list goes on...

James Riske

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 11:05:57 AM2/24/08
to
Rick Pikul wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske wrote:
>
>> There have been many posts by pedo Frank showing that Frank is indeed a
>> pedophile, one of pedo Frank's more convicting posts would be where
>> Frank claimed Lean Rhimms to be sexually attractive at age 13 and then
>> Frank concluded that the vast majority of adults would also consider her
>> to be sexually attractive at that age, thus making the wild and
>> outlandish claim that most adult males are pedophiles "by definition".
>
> Except for the slight problem that simply finding a young, possibly
> pubescent, person sexually attractive is not enough to be a pedophile.

False.
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedophile&x=0&y=0

"an adult who is sexually attracted to young children."

Stay stupid.

> Heck, even finding a clearly pre-pubescent sexually attractive isn't
> enough.

False, an adult who finds a child sexually attractive is in fact a
pedophile.


>
> Like all paraphilias, it is required that either the person acts on the
> sexual desire for pre-pubescent children <snip>

False again, an adult who is sexually attracted to children is a
pedophile, it is not required that the adult acts on their depraved desires.

It is clear you don't even know what a pedophile is.

James Riske

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 11:24:08 AM2/24/08
to
David wrote:
>
>
> Except that most child molestations are performed by parents or close
> friends.


Do you have current peer-reviewed scientific research to substantiate
this wild and outlandish claim of yours?

James Riske

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 11:33:14 AM2/24/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:41:26 -0800 (PST), "ŠšŠandcaroleŪ"
> <bobandc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He is now owned..a convicted pedophile recalled to prison for breach
> of parole and now possibly on his way back again for breaching the
> conditions of his registration as a level three registered sex
> predator..
>
> Stick a fork in TomBa.. he is done..
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.boy-lovers/msg/32765ff140e85e91?hl=en&&q=tomba+child+pornography
>

hahahaha

hahaha


hahahahahahaha

James Riske

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 11:26:16 AM2/24/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:08:42 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>

> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:22:45 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>> <us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:57:29 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:53:17 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>> <us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:12:53 -0500, James Riske
>>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 05:40:07 -0800 (PST), "ŠšŠandcaroleŪ"
>>>>>>> <bobandc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pedophiles take my advice, just commit suicide and get it over with, you
>>>>>> will be running and hiding from the law for the rest of your pathetic
>>>>>> lives anyways so you may as well just do yourselves in and be done with
>>>>>> it, save the children from your perverted clutches, if you really "love"
>>>>>> them then you would kill yourselves without any hesitation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam: "What?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
>>>>>> but lies and deceit.
>>>>> Taking the fear out of children and parents and putting it in
>>>>> pedophiles ..where it belongs..sure sounds good to me!
>>>> Except that most child molestations are performed by parents or close
>>>> friends.
>>> There is no evidence for this claim that parents are responsible for
>>> most sexual assaults..
>>>
>> But there is evidence of this.
>
> Then citing it should not be too much trouble for you..

>
>
>> Kashmir has cited several studies which
>> state exactly this.
>
> I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong...but I seem to recall
> she cited finding that pedophiles children know not strangers
> sexually assault children the most?
>
> That includes the incestuous pedophiles so dear to you but it's a
> stretch from that to assert parents are responsible for most sexual
> assaults isn't it?
>
>>> of course they would if they listened to *YOUR* ravings and urging on
>>> the acceptability of incest..
>>>
>>> You urge parents to have sex with their own children..even sodomize
>>> them..then have the audacity to pretend to be sane and rational and
>>> call your "special family love" *molestations*?
>>>
>> I maintain that once a child has passed the age of consent it is, or
>> should be, of no concern to anyone, including the law, regarding their
>> sexual partners.
>
> don't be silly...once past the age of consent they are considered an
> adult not a child as far as sex goes..we are talking of children ..
>
> As in your extraordinary assertion that sodomizing your own children
> can be good parenting..
>
> nice try though..
>
>
>

Yes, David is really grabbing for straws on this one and failing
miserably as usual.

James Riske

unread,
Feb 24, 2008, 11:19:55 AM2/24/08
to
Brandon D Cartwright wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:21:01 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:35:15 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>> <us...@example.net> typed furiously:

>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:55:21 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske
>>>> <james...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:

>>>>> When addressing despicable pedophiles "profanity" is often required, and
>>>>> believe me asshole, there's a lot of it to go around, flattery will only
>>>>> get you humiliated.
>>>>>
>>>> ROTFL. Once again you show that you cannot carry on an intelligent
>>>> conversation since your vocabulary is so limited that you have to
>>>> resort to expletives, profanity and obscenity.
>>> But you are all in favor of obscenity David..you think it an injustice
>>> that Frank McCoy was dragged in chains from his home to face justice
>>> and the Georgia Grand Jury for his disgusting filth about pedophiles
>>> fucking small children .
>> I do. I think it was overkill. They could have just asked him politely
>> to attend.
>>
>> His writings are not as you describe.
>
> sure they are..and he doesn't deny it..just says they are consensual..
>
> only you oddly deny it.
>
>> You obviously have never read
>> one of his stories. Once again you are relying on hearsay by other
>> people to make up your small mind for you.
>
> Not at all ...that would clearly be you describing yourself
> perfectly..
>
>> Just like the time you
>> claimed that some pictures were obscene pornography when they turned
>> out to be pictures of boys, mainly, fully clothed.
>
> Incorrect...
>
> The binaries I refererred to were hard core
> pornography videos of children being abused by adults...
>
> Pedophiles lie continuously ..


So noted.

Deadly Ernest

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 12:20:05 AM2/25/08
to
James Riske wrote:

G'day,

It's an interesting point that many of the on-line dictionaries define
pedophile as someone with an interest ins ex with children. One on-line
dictionary did have the definition as "An adult who engages in sexual
activity with a child."However I have some printed dictionaries from a few
decades back that defines pedophile as "A an adult whose primary or sole
sexual activity is with a child." Thus requiring a person to have actually
engaged in sex with a child to be a pedophile. They also define a child
as "A male or female who has not yet reached puberty."

So an adult having sex with a prepubescent human would be a pedophile,
regardless of their age, while if the person had reached puberty then the
adult isn't a pedophile. I did also find this interesting statement:

"The term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is
sexually attracted to young adolescents, especially younger than the local
age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or convicted of child sexual
abuse or child pornography related offences."

It seems the editors of many of the on-line dictionaries are set on turning
a colloquial definition into the accepted main definition, just as they
have done with many other words to change their meanings.

And a child is prepubescent person, so a person who find a pubescent child
sexually attractive isn't a pedophile - except in the minds of some
brainless idiots.

BTW: One of the basic precepts of law (until recently when a bunch of brain
dead nannies started making laws) is that harm or damage must be done
before a crime was committed. Crimes against property must have property
damage or loss to be a crime, crimes against people must have a person who
is hurt or damaged in some way. A person having thoughts about something or
writing about something is not a crime against the person except where
libel or slander comes in as that often causes damage.


--
Deadly Ernest
(All typos are the fault of the server gremlin.)

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

4s00th

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 10:52:40 AM2/25/08
to
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:13:33 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
<us...@example.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:16:02 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 06:26:40 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright


>><us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 23:21:01 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:35:15 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>><us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:55:21 -0800, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>

>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske

>>>>>><james...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>When addressing despicable pedophiles "profanity" is often required, and
>>>>>>>believe me asshole, there's a lot of it to go around, flattery will only
>>>>>>>get you humiliated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>ROTFL. Once again you show that you cannot carry on an intelligent
>>>>>>conversation since your vocabulary is so limited that you have to
>>>>>>resort to expletives, profanity and obscenity.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you are all in favor of obscenity David..you think it an injustice
>>>>>that Frank McCoy was dragged in chains from his home to face justice
>>>>>and the Georgia Grand Jury for his disgusting filth about pedophiles
>>>>>fucking small children .
>>>>
>>>>I do. I think it was overkill. They could have just asked him politely
>>>>to attend.
>>>>
>>>>His writings are not as you describe.
>>>
>>>sure they are..and he doesn't deny it..just says they are consensual..
>>>
>>>only you oddly deny it.
>>>

>>I said they were not as you describe. That does not mean they were not
>>graphically descriptive.
>>

>>>> You obviously have never read
>>>>one of his stories. Once again you are relying on hearsay by other
>>>>people to make up your small mind for you.
>>>
>>>Not at all ...that would clearly be you describing yourself
>>>perfectly..
>>>

>>But I have read many of Frank's stories so I am talking from first
>>hand knowledge whereas you are talking from hearsay. That is always
>>dangerous.
>

>Why do you assume that?
>
>Because it suits you..?
>
>I have posted a review of his "work " actually..
>
>Pedophiles fucking little children..you make a fool of yourself
>denying it..


>
>>>> Just like the time you
>>>>claimed that some pictures were obscene pornography when they turned
>>>>out to be pictures of boys, mainly, fully clothed.
>>>
>>>Incorrect...
>>>
>>>The binaries I refererred to were hard core
>>>pornography videos of children being abused by adults...
>>>

>>No! You were quite specific until 4sooth corrected you and described
>>the pictures about which you were complaining. You eventually backed
>>down and, for once, admitted that you could have been wrong.
>

>There was confusion..probably deliberate between child erotica posted
>on ASBL and hard core pornography posted elsewhere by ASBL members..

If there was any deliberate confusion, it was all on YOUR part,
Brandon. You first claimed that illegal child pornography was being
posted on THIS newsgroup -- referring to the pictures of Lorenzo that
were frequently reposted here by a particular someone. Of course,
Lorenzo is a legitimate child model and, to the best of my knowledge,
has never appeared in the nude -- but you wouldn't have known that,
having not bothered to actually look at any picture.

Then you claimed that you knew that illegal porn was being posted in
other groups -- as your "proof," you offered the statements made by
posters and leeches as well as the filenames. So, T&A very
deliberately posted a set of perfectly legal pictures in another
group, vaguely referring to them as "possibly illegal in some areas,"
and you bit. You immediately accused T&A of posting illegal child
pornography -- and probably reported it to the authorities as such!
Until, of course, I pointed out that I had downloaded said pix and
could say without any doubt that none of them were, in any way,
pornographic. I cannot remember whether this group contained nudes or
not, but none of them were pornographic. To which you immediately
replied that you knew they were pornographic because of the way that
T&A described them -- to which I pointed out that he had described
them that way to make you look like an ass, a fact he then confirmed.

At that point, you backed off and began referring to pictures as
"child-erotica" rather than pornography, a term that you seem to be
the only person to use, a term that you, no doubt, invented and
defined the way you CHOOSE to define it so that it can mean anything
you want it to mean.

>>>Pedophiles lie continuously ..

No, Brandon -- you lie continuously.

First, you claim that people are posting illegal child pornography on
THIS group -- until we prove otherwise. Then you claim that regulars
here are posting illegal child porn on other groups -- a claim that we
cannot totally disprove, but one that you cannot prove either; a claim
that is further drawn into doubt by the fact that many of the claims
you made about T&A's posts were totally false -- so much so that you
had to invent a new, bogus phrase for it.

And of course, let's not forget that you accuse everyone in this and
other groups of being child-molesters without any kind of proof --
despite the fact that others have found proof that some of the people
DO have records, proof found AFTER THE FACT of your accusations. And,
of course, you've actually backed down from your original, baseless
accusations against me.

And then, there's your sliding definition of the word "pedophile."
According to you, a pedophile is a child molester -- and must molest
children -- yet, there are several people here who clearly are
sexually attracted to children -- even young children -- who abstain.
Are you going to say that we are not pedophiles? Certainly, we are not
pedophiles by YOUR definition, yet you certainly choose to persecute
us as if we were.

>>>Ask Kasmir..
>>
>>The only person who lies continuously on any of these groups is you.
>

>Ask her why she tried to physically destroy her hard drive sucker..
>
>She knows as well as anybody else that if justice was done she would
>be behind bars..

So now you're going to equate someone possibly having some illegal
images on their hard drive with actively molesting children?

Has it occurred to you that you probably have no idea exactly what
images and other files are on YOUR hard drive? Especially considering
the fact that you probably go around looking for people who are
breaking the law? I'm not suggesting that you would deliberately
download anything illegal -- although you certainly might, but I'm not
one to make accusations without some kind of evidence -- but
everything you look at on the Internet gets stored on your hard drive.
Everything. And I will freely admit that I have seen advertisements
for web sites claiming to have child pornography that contained
illegal images in banner ads. Trust me, those ads were, of course, on
my hard drive just because I saw them -- not because I deliberately
downloaded them. And you should also trust me that they no longer
exist based on the DOD standards for obliterating data. But the point
is that anything could be on your hard drive. I'm not saying that
Kasmir has not downloaded things that she should not have -- I'm just
saying that it's easy enough to do without meaning to.

And personally, if those images help Kasmir keep herself strong and
keep to her resolve to not molest children, I say she should do what
she needs to do.

I know, in your little black-and-white world of absolutes, that you
could never see the difference -- but most people can.

-- 4s0...@hushmail.com

If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.

Rick Pikul

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 11:34:02 AM2/25/08
to
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:05:57 -0500, James Riske wrote:

> Rick Pikul wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:16:13 -0500, James Riske wrote:
>>
>>> There have been many posts by pedo Frank showing that Frank is indeed a
>>> pedophile, one of pedo Frank's more convicting posts would be where
>>> Frank claimed Lean Rhimms to be sexually attractive at age 13 and then
>>> Frank concluded that the vast majority of adults would also consider her
>>> to be sexually attractive at that age, thus making the wild and
>>> outlandish claim that most adult males are pedophiles "by definition".
>>
>> Except for the slight problem that simply finding a young, possibly
>> pubescent, person sexually attractive is not enough to be a pedophile.
>
> False.
> See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedophile&x=0&y=0
>
> "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children."

Nope: DSM IV:

1. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually
arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual
activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years
or younger);

2. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or
fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;

3. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than
the child or children in Criterion A.


Note how the child(ren) must be prepubescent, and the requirement over and
above simple attraction.

>> Heck, even finding a clearly pre-pubescent sexually attractive isn't
>> enough.
>
> False, an adult who finds a child sexually attractive is in fact a
> pedophile.

The people who define these things disagree with you.

>> Like all paraphilias, it is required that either the person acts on the
>> sexual desire for pre-pubescent children <snip>
>
> False again, an adult who is sexually attracted to children is a
> pedophile, it is not required that the adult acts on their depraved
> desires.

Correct, having the attraction cause significant mental distress or
interpersonal difficulty would also qualify. Which I already pointed out
in the part you are playing delete and ignore with.

Lies of omission are still lies, and you sir are a liar.

> It is clear you don't even know what a pedophile is.

Unlike you, I actually went to a definitive source.

> Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
>
> Sam: "What?"
>
> Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
>
> Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
> but lies and deceit.

Hint about your .sig: Sam was in the wrong, in fact it was largely Sam's
treatment that caused Smeagol to turn back into Gollum.

--
Phoenix

Richard Fallstrom

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 12:29:21 PM2/25/08
to
In article <13s4jv1...@corp.supernews.com>, Deadly Ernest
<ern...@bywaternospam.net.au> wrote:

Excellent observation!

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

ªºªandca®ole

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 7:47:46 PM2/25/08
to
On Feb 26, 2:02�pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:


> But that's the same way that Risky operates. Make the accusation, even
> if it's not true, shout it from the rooftops for long enough and
> loudly enough and soon, voila, many people start to believe it. It's
> called "The Big Lie" and Risky is an expert at attempting it. He,

Bla bla bla.....

> Bo0bym and Braindead are all people who use this technique. Never mind
> about the truth, I say so so that is how it must be.
Who?? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


James Riske

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 10:03:17 PM2/25/08
to
David wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:24:08 -0500, James Riske
> <james...@h0tmail.com> typed furiously:
>
>> David wrote:
>>>
>>> Except that most child molestations are performed by parents or close
>>> friends.
>>
>> Do you have current peer-reviewed scientific research to substantiate
>> this wild and outlandish claim of yours?
>>
> Almost every study confirms this. Pick one and read it.

Evasion.

Answer the question lying asshole.

4s00th

unread,
Feb 25, 2008, 10:58:34 PM2/25/08
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:26:29 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
<us...@example.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:52:40 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>

>They *are* uploading and downloading hard core child pornography and
>one of the characters you support has previous convictions for it..

I'm sure that some people are doing just that -- yet you have never
proven that anyone who regularly posts in this newsgroup currently
does so despite your claims to the contrary.

And any support that I had given was withdrawn when EVIDENCE warranted
that it be withdrawn -- not the baseless accusations you make.

>> So, T&A very
>>deliberately posted a set of perfectly legal pictures in another
>>group, vaguely referring to them as "possibly illegal in some areas,"
>>and you bit. You immediately accused T&A of posting illegal child
>>pornography -- and probably reported it to the authorities as such!
>>Until, of course, I pointed out that I had downloaded said pix and
>>could say without any doubt that none of them were, in any way,
>>pornographic. I cannot remember whether this group contained nudes or
>>not, but none of them were pornographic. To which you immediately
>>replied that you knew they were pornographic because of the way that
>>T&A described them -- to which I pointed out that he had described
>>them that way to make you look like an ass, a fact he then confirmed.
>>
>>At that point, you backed off and began referring to pictures as
>>"child-erotica" rather than pornography, a term that you seem to be
>>the only person to use, a term that you, no doubt, invented and
>>defined the way you CHOOSE to define it so that it can mean anything
>>you want it to mean.
>

>congratulations..
>
>You are not that naive you have just upgraded yourself from fool to
>knave..
>
>Results 1 - 10 of about 576,000 for child erotica
>
>
>http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/Default.asp
>
>In general predatory child sex offenders tend to be male, less than
>average intelligent and are incapable of undertaking any prolonged
>period of grooming. They generally fit into a stereotypical offender
>profile, living alone or with a parent, unemployed or in low paid work
>and unable to form adult relationships.
>
>Their cycle of offending is also typical and begins with the basic
>attraction and sexual arousal by thoughts of children. Such a person
>will typically be in possession of either
>
>*child erotica*
>
> or child pornography with which he will fantasize and masturbate. At
>this stage he can certainly be described as, and fits the definition
>of, a paedophile. However, other than possessing child pornography,
>which is not an offence in many countries, he does not commit any
>offences. The reason why this type of person does not proceed beyond
>this stage is as a result of internal and external inhibitors or both.
>
>
It's nice that you could find evidence to support your claims AFTER
THE FACT, but I notice that this article does not define the phrase
"child erotica" either. Convenient, isn't it? That means that anything
that a pedophile might have in his possession that does not meet the
criteria for child pornography can be slogged off into this
"catch-all" category created solely for the purpose of misleading
people.

Further, the article describes the characteristics of convicted sexual
offenders, NOT PEDOPHILES. Note that the descriptions: "less than
average intelligent," (and here the article screws up it's grammar
rather pathetically, making it seem strange that THEY have the nerve
to refer to someone else's low intelligence) "unemployed or in low
paid work," "living alone or with a parent" and "unable to form adult
relationships" is a common theme AMONG CONVICTED CRIMINALS in JAIL.
So, basically, your article does not even begin to describe pedophiles
-- who actually run the entire spectrum of intelligence from low to
genius; who generally have the entire spectrum of jobs including
police, doctors and business; many of whom have very successful home
lives that may include spouses and family and successful social lives
as well.

"Like any other population there are a wide range of behaviors and a
variety of people who sexually abuse children."

http://www.stopitnow.org/comquest.html#Q4

"George is the typical child molester. He's married, educated,
working, and religious."

http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

The page goes on: "First of all, he's married, just like 77 percent of
the more than 4000 child sexual abusers in the Child Molestation
Prevention Study. George is religious, like 93 percent of the abusers.
He's educated. More than 46 percent had some college education and
another 30 percent were high school graduates. Like 65 percent of the
admitted abusers, George was working. Numerous studies of adult
victims have sought to link child molestation victims to lower social
class and lower family income. All have failed. Child victims and
their abusers exist equally in families of all income levels and
classes. And, now from the study, we know that child molesters are as
equally married, educated, employed, and religious as any other
Americans."


Please note that these are not statistics about pedophiles per se, but
actual child molesters. These people have the intelligence to define
their terms and specify how they use them in their work:

"A child molester is any older child or adult who touches a child for
his or her own sexual gratification.

"Child molestation is the act of sexually touching a child.

"A child is a girl or boy who is 13 years of age or younger.

"What's the age difference between a molester and a child? It is five
years, so a 14-year-old "older child" sexually touching a
nine-year-old is an example. This is the accepted medical definition.

"Sometimes, a professional will consider that a molestation act has
occurred when the older child is only three years older - a
sixth-grader with a third-grader, for instance. The crucial element
here is the lack of equality between the two children; the sixth
grader is clearly bigger, more powerful, and more "adult-like" than
the third-grader.

"We avoid definitions that are ambiguous by sticking to the medical
definition. We define "child molester" as an adult or child, who is at
least five years older than the child he or she has molested."


Unlike you, who chooses to bandy about words and phrases without
providing an accurate definition so that you can revise it as you go
along -- something you've consistently done since you began posting
here. By your deliberate choice to define "pedophile" as a child
molester, you deliberately confuse the actual issues involved -- such
as whether they have actually "touched" a child for their own sexual
gratification. You choose colloquial usage of terms rather than the
exact medical and psychiatric definition -- and, as a matter of fact,
the LEGAL definitions.

But I notice that you don't argue these points from my earlier post.

4s00th

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 12:01:04 AM2/26/08
to
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:14:48 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
<us...@example.net> wrote:

>>>> Just like the time you
>>>>claimed that some pictures were obscene pornography when they turned
>>>>out to be pictures of boys, mainly, fully clothed.
>>>
>>>Incorrect...
>>>
>>>The binaries I refererred to were hard core
>>>pornography videos of children being abused by adults...
>>>
>>No! You were quite specific until 4sooth corrected you and described
>>the pictures about which you were complaining. You eventually backed
>>down and, for once, admitted that you could have been wrong.
>>

>>>Pedophiles lie continuously ..


>>>
>>>Ask Kasmir..
>>
>>The only person who lies continuously on any of these groups is you.
>

>Lying scoundrel you are..
>
>
>Message-ID: <20030720231813.434$b...@newsreader.com>
>
>
>Quote:
>
>
>I'm posting this for all the guys who have written me. This is a 100%


>free website which contains dozens and dozens of stories about very
>young little girls having sex with their fathers and older men. All
>are written by Frank McCoy, and these stories are hot.
>
> Example: A
>
>mother who takes off her 5 year old daughters underware so she can go
>fuck the man in the living room while she converses with the mans
>wife. BTW, his real little daughter was sucking his cock until the 5
>y.o. arrives and is kind of irritated at the arrival of the little
>girl. He picks up the 5 y.o. and carefully mounts her onto his cock.
>He has three huge orgasms in her as they watch TV together.
>
>
>Frank McCoy has created a world where pedos and sex with little girls
>is an accepted and welcomed part of culture. Its pure mind candy.
>Heres the site:
>
>
>http://www.young-stuff/frank<REDACTED>
>
>
>end quote.

So, basically, you posted the link in your original piece -- which
makes you guilty of the same crime that Frank is being prosecuted for.

Hmm, maybe I should be sending information to Georgia.

4s00th

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 12:21:52 AM2/26/08
to

Actually, you're quite wrong there. In the psychological and
psychiatric definition that you've quoted, the age of the child is
clearly before puberty -- I'm not arguing against you there. However,
none of the above symptoms require anything more than an attraction.

Note in 1: recurrent arousing fantasies or urges OR behaviors --
therefore the person need not act on the fantasies or desires or
urges, but merely have them.

Note in 2: acted on OR the urges or fantasies cause marked distress or
interpersonal difficulty -- again, the person need not have acted on
the desires; but I dare you to show me anyone who is a pedophile and
has NOT had marked distress or interpersonal difficulty because of the
feelings. It may not be so much that they become involved with the
legal or mental health system, but most pedophiles go through long
periods of distress over the feelings.

The point behind the DSM definition is that it's okay to have
fantasies -- no matter what those fantasies are. The problems come
when the person either breaks the law OR is suffering because of the
feelings. You'll note how homosexuality was once considered an illness
known as "conversion disorder" but in later editions was only
considered an illness if the person was suffering because of his
homosexuality -- "ego-dystonic homosexuality" which may, by now, have
been dropped from DSM altogether.

At my particular age and level of self-actualization, I don't have the
long periods of marked distress over my feelings -- does that mean I'm
not a pedophile anymore? Just because I've accepted that I am what I
am and that the only thing to do is to deal with it?

Another common argument is whether or not pedophilia is the person's
primary sexual attraction. Look, the fact is that you can probably
find someone who's attracted to about anything you can name. This is
the whole gamut of human sexual attraction -- and NO ONE falls into a
single point on the continuum. Even gay men are occasionally attracted
to women to more or lesser degrees. That means that a certain amount
of pedophilic desire is normal and natural. Many deny it, but let's
face it, our society is totally attuned to the sexuality of children.
There are the bear-skinned rug pictures that people ooh and aah over
and say are "so cute!" Hell, I even saw a great example of this on the
cartoon show, The Rugrats!

My point is that, while you are right, thinking that LeAnn Rimes at 13
was a pretty little thing is probably not enough to make you
considered a pedophile. Especially when you consider that, at 13, she
looked pretty much like an adult and has not changed that much since
then! But pedophilia describes a feeling, not an action. And while a
purely technical definition of pedophilia may limit the attraction to
prepubescent children, many pedophiles are also attracted to children
who are pubescent -- even if only just pubescent.

>>> Heck, even finding a clearly pre-pubescent sexually attractive isn't
>>> enough.
>>
>> False, an adult who finds a child sexually attractive is in fact a
>> pedophile.
>
>The people who define these things disagree with you.
>
>>> Like all paraphilias, it is required that either the person acts on the
>>> sexual desire for pre-pubescent children <snip>
>>
>> False again, an adult who is sexually attracted to children is a
>> pedophile, it is not required that the adult acts on their depraved
>> desires.
>
>Correct, having the attraction cause significant mental distress or
>interpersonal difficulty would also qualify. Which I already pointed out
>in the part you are playing delete and ignore with.
>
>Lies of omission are still lies, and you sir are a liar.
>
>> It is clear you don't even know what a pedophile is.
>
>Unlike you, I actually went to a definitive source.
>
>> Frodo: "Why do you do that?"
>>
>> Sam: "What?"
>>
>> Frodo: "Call him names? Run him down all the time."
>>
>> Sam: "Because that's what he is Mister Frodo. There's naught left in him
>> but lies and deceit.
>
>Hint about your .sig: Sam was in the wrong, in fact it was largely Sam's
>treatment that caused Smeagol to turn back into Gollum.

Rick Pikul

unread,
Feb 26, 2008, 1:23:15 AM2/26/08
to
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:21:52 -0500, 4s00th wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:34:02 -0000, "Rick Pikul"
> <rwp...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Nope: DSM IV:
>>
>> 1. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually
>> arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual
>> activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years
>> or younger);
>>
>> 2. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or
>> fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
>>
>> 3. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than
>> the child or children in Criterion A.
>>
>>
>>Note how the child(ren) must be prepubescent, and the requirement over and
>>above simple attraction.
>
> Actually, you're quite wrong there. In the psychological and
> psychiatric definition that you've quoted, the age of the child is
> clearly before puberty -- I'm not arguing against you there. However,
> none of the above symptoms require anything more than an attraction.
>
> Note in 1: recurrent arousing fantasies or urges OR behaviors --
> therefore the person need not act on the fantasies or desires or
> urges, but merely have them.

The three conditions are each necessary but not sufficient. Just meeting
one of them is not enough, (or else every President of the US has been a
pedophile).

> Note in 2: acted on OR the urges or fantasies cause marked distress or
> interpersonal difficulty -- again, the person need not have acted on
> the desires; but I dare you to show me anyone who is a pedophile and
> has NOT had marked distress or interpersonal difficulty because of the
> feelings.

You're begging the question, without the distress or interpersonal
difficulty, (counting committing child abuse as an 'interpersonal
difficulty'), you haven't got a pedophile.

Now, I _have_ come across quite a few people who are attracted to
prepubescents but who do not have such problems. Generally because they
accept that they can never go beyond the realms of fantasy. (I know about
them because there are some very good artists in the cub porn communities.)


> The point behind the DSM definition is that it's okay to have
> fantasies -- no matter what those fantasies are. The problems come
> when the person either breaks the law OR is suffering because of the
> feelings.

Exactly.

Heck, pedophilia is unusual for a paraphilia in that acting on the
desires can qualify you.

--
Phoenix

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages