A Friendly Warning to astraweb users
4s00th
canceled today. They cited specifically that they did not allow
posting of photographs of any minor-age "model" whether nude or
clothed. They actually claimed that they would only allow posting of
photographs when proof of the models' ages were on file.
They were quite wrong to state that he had posted "illegal" pix on the
group that bears his name, as none of the pix met the USA definition
of "pornographic" though they were, in fact, all nudes. If I'm not
mistaken some of these same photos may have been posted by our own T&A
or VV in naughty-boy. And, yes, according to what our friend stated,
their contact with him did refer to them as illegal photographs.
Those of you who are also using astraweb -- be careful if you want to
keep in touch with the fort. I don't think there will be any legal
problems as a result of this incident, as I stated, the pix where not
pornographic. But do not automatically assume that further action will
not be taken in this or future cases.
Watch your asses! It seems missus toffee knees may have shown good
foresight when he decided that he would no longer post such
photographs, especially via astraweb.
If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.
Unknown
gofuck american in his ass
and hope usa become millons on osama bin ladens.
fuck the american terror in this world, usa is not a serius folk!
Unknown
think this erea is one europe only a staate of usa :(
Chakotay
I have since got a new subscription and have been posting stuff and so
far ive not been cancelled so it must have been because i did not yenc
code the pictures but in future i will either zip up images and post
them as a split rar file or something.
On 11 Sep 2008 00:06:01 -0500, +Grant <+Gr...@grant.grant> wrote:
>In article <342hc41rglrd08u2v...@4ax.com>, 4s00th
>Our former prolific security helper recommended for years that people
>don't post BL things with astraweb but just use their account to post
>text or download. He couldn't post about why without exposing some fort
>members security so people might not have taken that warming seriously
>enough. I think your information helps reinforce the recommendation.
>Thank you.
4s00th
wrote:
>4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote in news:342hc41rglrd08u2vddr1o61mgoh4visg6
>@4ax.com:
>
>> Our Trekkin' Indigenous American had his account with astraweb
>> canceled today. They cited specifically that they did not allow
>> posting of photographs of any minor-age "model" whether nude or
>> clothed. They actually claimed that they would only allow posting of
>> photographs when proof of the models' ages were on file.
>>
>> They were quite wrong to state that he had posted "illegal" pix on the
>> group that bears his name, as none of the pix met the USA definition
>> of "pornographic" though they were, in fact, all nudes. If I'm not
>> mistaken some of these same photos may have been posted by our own T&A
>> or VV in naughty-boy. And, yes, according to what our friend stated,
>> their contact with him did refer to them as illegal photographs.
>>
>> Those of you who are also using astraweb -- be careful if you want to
>> keep in touch with the fort. I don't think there will be any legal
>> problems as a result of this incident, as I stated, the pix where not
>> pornographic. But do not automatically assume that further action will
>> not be taken in this or future cases.
>>
>> Watch your asses! It seems missus toffee knees may have shown good
>> foresight when he decided that he would no longer post such
>> photographs, especially via astraweb.
>
>Be scared you little cockroaches! There's a light shing on you, and we all
>know how much you sick fucks hate that!
Well, as long as those who are "shing"-ing the light are only as smart
as you, then we've got nothing to worry about.
Don't you have some slum properties to manage, you impotent, little
bigot?
Tedn'...@bldl.com
wrote:
>Vlad-The-Impaler <me-a...@wombledown.net> wrote in
>news:thi1d4t2edbfd0hl6...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:50:50 +0200 (CEST), jeanpauljesus
>> <jeanpa...@heaven.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Have to agree with Vlad there.
>>>
>>>I'm always amazed how otherwise rational people cannot see that resources
>>>devoted to chasing what should be low priority bogies are resources that
>>>cannot be spent on truly high priority issues.
>>>
>>>The reason they cannot see this is because their claims to "protect"
>>>children in this way are - whether they are aware of this or not, usually
>>>not - actually come from their arbitrary morality and terror about sex
>>>and sexuality, and not so much from rational analysis of actual risks to
>>>children, especially in the case of boys. Yet pedophiles are the ones
>>>who are supposed to exhibit "cognitive distortion" (!).
>>>
>>>And of course, we have seen research that questions the assumptions and
>>>claims of the CA industry censured and its authors professionally
>>>ostracized - that's where such research isn't outright buried to begin
>>>with, that is. Why bother listening to that which you don't agree with?
>>>
>>>The assumption that photographing a child nude will "harm" children is a
>>>case in point. That assumption has been extended by the CA Industry to
>>>include a whole range of images that, until a few years ago, were never
>>>seen as "indecent" at all. It's arbitrary, and entirely culturally
>>>determined.
>>>
>>>But you're wasting your time Vlad on NB - he's just a troll and just
>>>spews whatever. I never read his posts.
>>>
>>>
>> Aye, jpj, he's an ineffectual jackanapes, to be sure. inordinately
>> impressed with his own inadaquacies, so insignificant that his
>> significance no longer signifies A village somewhere has clearly
>> mislaid its resident idiot. But amuses me, watching him squawking away
>> on his bouncy ball. Does he pass this way often, or is he just out on
>> day release, like?
>>
>> Vlad
>
>Still stung that I called you out on snipping this, huh?
>
>"I said you are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who profess to love and
>presumably respect boys yet keep posting and downloading their pics
>without their informed consent."
Gawd, but you're boring.
Get a new line. Get a new life.
Aren't your "thirty minutes online" up yet?
Get fucked, you lying, impotent limp dick.
Tedn'Alice
Law that is Unjust is not Law.
Tedn'...@bldl.com
wrote:
>Tedn'Al...@BLDL.com wrote in
>news:8kn3d4tv8njoqvi4f...@4ax.com:
>What are you upset about? Have you ever stopped to think why you are
>sexually attracted to young boys?
Sure.
I hate fuckers like you.
I did as a kid,
And I do now.
Have a noice day.
TnA
Jerry
208.90.168.18:
> Tedn'Al...@BLDL.com wrote in
> news:pb16d4to8aluovfhf...@4ax.com:
> It's a bit sad when you still haven't got over your mistreatment as a
lad
> when you are well into your 50's. Is that what makes you scared of
adult
> relationships?
another improvised shrink, greaty!
Tedn'...@bldl.com
LOL
NB seems to think I'm scared of adult relationships.
Seems he thinks fucking women defines a complete adult relationship.
Pretty narrow point of view, ain't it?
How'd ya like to be married to that kind of bloke?
With all the time he spends in the boy groups, I think he either ain't
gettin' any or he's got some deep-seated psychological issues, like
his uncle diddling him when he was five.
And he never really got over it.
Whaddya think?
Maybe both, eh?
So tell me NB ... this all just self-righteous outrage, or did someone
slip you one in the bath?
TnA
Frogbutt
4ax.com:
--
Rules are for those who lack an imagination-Me
For your information, the real Frogbutt doesn't post with other nics,
and doesn't impersonate other posters. Yes, he is a vile Troll, butt,
unlike many of them, he DOES have standards.-Y-Tard, the self proclaimed
"inventor of usenet", in alt.fan.prettyboy 10/15/06
You can fucking go to Hell, you sorry assed-cunt-tainted shite-eating
sonofabitch bastard.-The peace loving and non-violent Tedn'Alice in
alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy on 8/04/08
Frogbutt
4s00th
You know, if that's his attitude, then you'd expect that he has no
problem with kiddie-fuckers -- after all, it's sad that they can't get
over any mistreatment as a lad. He can't even be consistent in his
ignorance!
>>another improvised shrink, greaty!
>
>LOL
>
>NB seems to think I'm scared of adult relationships.
>Seems he thinks fucking women defines a complete adult relationship.
>Pretty narrow point of view, ain't it?
>How'd ya like to be married to that kind of bloke?
>
>With all the time he spends in the boy groups, I think he either ain't
>gettin' any or he's got some deep-seated psychological issues, like
>his uncle diddling him when he was five.
>
>And he never really got over it.
>
>Whaddya think?
>
>Maybe both, eh?
>
>So tell me NB ... this all just self-righteous outrage, or did someone
>slip you one in the bath?
>
>TnA
Now, now, you know his answer -- he'll accuse you of projecting your
own experiences on him! It sure is funny how a little knowledge of a
simple defense mechanism makes one feel like a shrink!
But I have to wonder why you keep playing with him -- we've already
proven he's nothing more than a brain-dead bigot who only bothers
because he needs to look down on someone to compensate for his own
inferiority. He doesn't give a damn about kids -- he just wants to
hurt others, and he can't understand why people follow any kind of
rules when it's so obvious that no one can enforce those rules on the
Internet. He just can't get it into his head that some people choose
to do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do (read:
moral development of a 5-year-old).
So why do you continue to tease someone who's so clearly deficient in
intelligence, self-esteem and moral development?
Jerry
> Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty> wrote in
> news:Xns9B1C63...@208.90.168.18:
>
>> Vlad-The-Impaler <me-a...@laughter.net> wrote in
>> news:4n6vc457ks6ak7911...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:14:52 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy
>>> <naughtynaughty> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vlad-The_Impaler <A-Po...@trolls.net> wrote in
>>>>news:0mmtc4pkduo43kebh...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So boy-lovers "should be put away BEFORE they molest a child".
>>>>
>>>>I never said that.
>>>>
>>>>You freaks suck and anything you say sucks.
>>>
>>> Ah! NB's talent for informed debate. Run & hide behind hysterical
>>> shibboleths.
>>
>> Ah yes, now we see you are a coward. Let's see what you snipped out
>> of my message:
>>
>> "I said you are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who profess to love and
>> presumably respect boys yet keep posting and downloading their pics
>> without their informed consent."
>>
>> Ah yes. No comment on that I see. What was that about informed
>> debate?
>>
>>
>>>>You won't denounce the trade in pics nor denounce child sex. No
>>>>wonder society hates you.
>>>
>>> Motor cars kill more youngsters & child cyclists than any "pics"
>>> have ever managed. Are you comfortable with that...for THERE is
>>> something REAL to grieve over?
>>>
>>> American carpet bombing has annihilated or mutilated, albeit
>>> unintended, hundreds of thousands of children in Asia & the
>>> Middle-East. THERE is a REAL & much greater cause to grieve over. Or
>>> are you comfortable with that as well?
>>>
>>> Please cease your nauseatingly sanctimonious claptrap. Go out to the
>>> soup kitchens in the slum quarters.......Put your money where your
>>> mouth is.
>>
>> Nice attempt at diversion there. How is it relevant to you so-called
>> "boylovers"? It isn't. And still you won't denounce the trade in pics
>> nor denounce child sex, even when given the opportunity. You freaks
>> suck.
>>
>>
>>>>Go impale yourself, boy hater.
>>>
>>> "Boy hater"????
>>>
>>> What a lame, unsupported & impotent conclusion. I think you should
>>> sack your script-writer.... he's clearly ill-suited for the job.
>>
>> Yes, boyhater. You snipped this because you were so uncomfortable
>> with it:
>>
>> "I said you are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who profess to love and
>> presumably respect boys yet keep posting and downloading their pics
>> without their informed consent."
>>
>> And still you won't denounce the trade in pics nor denounce child
>> sex.
>>
>> No wonder society hates you freaks!
>>
>>
>>
>
> Still no answer from the pedofreaks on this post. No surprise there.
buahahaha, but Naughty-boy, stupid son of a bitch, when did you assume
that we have the obligation to answer an oafish cow like you? We don't
have so much time to waste as you do, probably because we aren't jobless
like you. I see you are trying with psychology now, ahh... then that's
what happens when someone have all the time to spare.
>The point is - if you are a bunch of so-called boylovers,whydo you risk
>damaging boys by posting their pics all over Usenet? You can't say it's
>harmless, because you all refuse to post your own pics, don't you? It's
>the hypocrisy, loser.
awwww, but forgodshake, look at me. Do I have to waste my words in a
soft head like this Naughty-boy? Is honey made for a donkey's taste?
Noo, they say. And nevertheless even a donkey could make keener
questions. But how can a picture, stupid motherfucker, cause damage or
put in risk the life of a boy? Maybe if you throw the printed picture,
spinning and crazy, right to his jugular. But no, I suppose you are not
refeering to that. Then tell me, idiot, when you talk about boys are you
meaning specifically the boys pictured, or perhaps, in more general
terms, that cheeky and ruddy sector of our global population known as
'boys'? Before you answer please you should realize that I don't give a
fuck for whatever you have to opine. Just note this, if it wasn't for
prudish bumpkins like you, every boy, girl, man, dog, or woman pictured
could be very glad of each one of the positive emotions provoked by
their portrays (and between each one of these positive emotions of
course I include each one of the drops of semen spread, pro or against
the wind, with the help of their sweet images) And a question more, but
rhetoric, allways rhetoric. What the fuck makes you think that we don't
post our own pics? Or perhaps you are suggesting, comparing your
intelligence to ours, that we should post them alongside our names and
addresses. It's said and said again: poor idiot you are!
and now that I'm finished with you
greetings from the pedo-anarchic-freak Jerry!
Tedn'...@bldl.com
wrote:
Reason?
Entertainment.
The same reason kids poke at a mad pitbull through the fence slats.
Listen to him fly into a frothing fit.
Beats the hell out of the tellie, I can tell you!
4s00th
wrote:
>Tedn'Al...@BLDL.com wrote in
>news:khsgd4t7a3odojh7d...@4ax.com:
>Frothing fit? Is that how you see it? I must watch my prose more
>carefully. All I mean to do is point out the hypocrisy of those who are
>supposed "boylovers", and then post boys pics all over Usenet for
>pedophiles sexual satisfaction without any regard to those boy's feelings.
If that was what you were doing, then I might actually applaud your
efforts -- you have stated a genuine problem in the boy-love
community: those who claim to love, but only serve lust.
Sharing pictures is not so much of a problem -- though I freely admit
that there is no way in hell that _I_ would post pix of someone I love
in a place where those lusters can slaver over them -- well, certainly
not pictures of an intimate nature. But for the most part, we share
pictures here that we've found -- usually on the Internet.
But the truth of the matter is that you do NOT generally point out
such problems -- you spread your hatred and foment more hatred all
based on your own bigoted ideas of what we are and what you think we
do.
Let me ask you, if I didn't love the boys I so admire, what would keep
me from going out and using them as I saw fit? Fear of punishment? We
all know that people who commit crimes believe that they will not get
caught, so the threat of punishment is non-existent. You're right that
there are a lot of people who claim "love" when they actually have no
idea what the word means. But for those of us who do understand -- it
is that very love that you mock that makes us choose to ignore our own
desires and needs.
Tedn'...@bldl.com
wrote:
>Tedn'Al...@BLDL.com wrote in
>news:khsgd4t7a3odojh7d...@4ax.com:
>Frothing fit? Is that how you see it? I must watch my prose more
>carefully. All I mean to do is point out the hypocrisy of those who are
>supposed "boylovers", and then post boys pics all over Usenet for
>pedophiles sexual satisfaction without any regard to those boy's feelings.
Shit, NB.
This argument is so utterly lame, I don't see how you can stick to it.
I mean, think about it.
Think about all the occurrances of posting images of boys, and
children in general, that occur on the internet without their
"informed consent." You can start with Picasa and Flickr if ya want
...
Again, you assume boys, if they knew, would protest. That's an
assumption, 'case you missed it. "All over the Usenet?" A little bit
'o an exaggeration, don't you think? And there you go with that
sexual satisfaction thing again. Them's pretty strong wurds, pilgrim.
I bet you've got lots of evidence to back that claim up ... uh ...
once you define what YOU mean by the term.
By the way, what the fuck is "informed consent" anyway. Is there such
a thing as "UNinformed consent" then? Krist, yer laffable.
That's why I like hearing from you--for years now, ain't it been?
Get stuffed, shite-fer-brains.
"Teddles"
Tedn'...@bldl.com
wrote:
>4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>news:s6jid4tg6j1hdp2ln...@4ax.com:
>Love? Don't make me laugh.
Well, fellers.
This 's been a HOOT! I'd stay for yer laugh-fest, NB, but I've got
some slavering to do!
LOL (sorry, I meant) *snigger* *drool* *drool*
4s00th
wrote:
>Tedn'Al...@BLDL.com wrote in
>news:n76jd4hp1n7872m9c...@4ax.com:
>Ah, the old "other people do it so we can do it too" excuse. Then again,
>we don't expect pedos to have much character or conviction.
Now that is funny -- coming from someone who believes he doesn't have
to obey any rules on the Internet just because there's no way to
enforce rules on the Internet! And since you've already proven by
your own statements that you have neither character nor conviction, I
guess it's only fair that you assume that others do not as well.
>> Again, you assume boys, if they knew, would protest. That's an
>> assumption, 'case you missed it.
>
>You are happy to take the risk though, aren't you? Not much "boylove" in
>evidence there.
>
>> "All over the Usenet?" A little bit
>> 'o an exaggeration, don't you think? And there you go with that
>> sexual satisfaction thing again. Them's pretty strong wurds, pilgrim.
>> I bet you've got lots of evidence to back that claim up ... uh ...
>> once you define what YOU mean by the term.
>
>Why else would you freaks post them? Amusement? Where's the "boylove" in
>that?
Have you never conceived of ascetic appreciation? Boys are beautiful.
One doesn't have to be lusting just to enjoy beauty.
>> By the way, what the fuck is "informed consent" anyway. Is there such
>> a thing as "UNinformed consent" then? Krist, yer laffable.
>
>If you fail to understand two English words strung together, then that's
>your problem. Basically it means that even if a child could consent to
>anything, do they know the full consequences of what they are agreeing to?
>I guess you would like to see a return of children working in coal mines
>as well, eh?
No, but it does seem strange that a child who can legally be held
responsible for any crime he or she may commit cannot even give
permission to allow their picture to be placed on a web site. They can
be locked up for stealing because they're supposed to be able to
understand the consequences of those acts, but they can't even say
that they'd like to be loved? Or sexed, for that matter? Why is it
that they always get the bad stuff much younger than they get the good
stuff? And who is it who decides what arbitrary age is chosen? Hell,
in most cultures, by the time a child reached what is now considered
the age of reason/responsibility, they were practically considered
adults in years past? And generally married not long after?
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not about to claim that young kids can or
should be expected to be able to consent to sex, but I don't
understand why we choose arbitrary ages and why we hold them
responsible for the bad stuff long before we allow them the privilege
of the good stuff. And don't get me started on "adult movie tickets!"
>> That's why I like hearing from you--for years now, ain't it been?
>
>I was here a long time before you and I'll be here a long time afterwards.
>I have seen lots of you pedos come and go over the years. Funny thing is,
>once you freaks stop posting nothing is ever heard from you again. Funny
>that.
And I've been around a lot longer than you -- and I've seen you bigots
come and go. Funny -- once you bigots stop posting nothing is ever
heard from you again either. Or is it really strange how, when people
stop posting, you don't hear from them again? Geez, you can really be
a mental midget sometimes.
4s00th
wrote:
>4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> wrote in
>news:s6jid4tg6j1hdp2ln...@4ax.com:
>
>Love? Don't make me laugh.
I apologize. It was never my intention to use words beyond your
understanding.
Tedn'...@bldl.com
wrote:
>> If you fail to understand two English words strung together, then
>>> that's your problem. Basically it means that even if a child could
>>> consent to anything, do they know the full consequences of what they
>>> are agreeing to
Right.
So yer concept of "informed consent" implies that kids can consent, or
you wouldn't have made the distinction, Professor NB?
Get your story straight.
Now if ye admit that kids can give that kind of consent, then yer
saying that the posting of any pictures of kids on the web requires
this kind of consent? Right?
Okay, so the seenario is this--you take some pix and before you post
'em, you've got to inform the kids about the "full consequences of
what they're agreeing to." Gee, I suspect that'd take a hell of alot
of paper ... I mean to cover all contingencies.
Now what, in your twisted little mind, might be those "full
consequences?" Have you any idea? Probly not. Anyone with a thimble
full of sense (just roughly more than you got) can see all kinds of
problems with that.
Now if yer referring to certain TYPES of pictures, such as nudes, for
example, or skimpy speedos, or boys in baggy pants holding their arms
over their heads--anything "suggestive", how does that change the
equation? What about archival pictures from the 19th century--Von
Gloeden, for example? Do you hold a fucking sceance?
You probably mean the pictures you've seen posted here, maybe?
Oh, that's right. You've never actually seen any of them, have you?
Of course, you'll deny your complete ignorance and assert your
assumptions as fact--because it is convenient.
You're pathetic and, as usual, full of shite. Find a new tack.
TnA
Tedn'...@bldl.com
wrote:
>Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty> wrote in
>news:Xns9B1E87...@208.90.168.18:
>
>> Tedn'Al...@BLDL.com wrote in
>> news:qf16d4d5l702cn2ka...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:28:23 +0000 (UTC), Naughty Boy <naughtynaughty>
>>>>So why did you snip this?
>>>>
>>>>"I said you are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who profess to love and
>>>>presumably respect boys yet keep posting and downloading their pics
>>>>without their informed consent."
>>>>
>>>>No answer on that yet, huh? No doubt you will keep ignoring.
>>>
>>> Not only is your line impotent,
>>> It's old.
>>
>> So why not copy and paste an old riposte?
>>
>>> Get a new one jackspew.
>>
>> Maybe if you answer this one first. Or are you going to come out with
>> that hoary old chestnut of "they are old pics/legal pics"? As if that
>> makes any difference to respect levels.
>>
>>
>
>No answer again, huh? Why are you pedos so afraid of this question?
Uh ... yeah?
What was that rhetorical question again, dipshit?
Frogbutt
news:531kd4d69qiatgadk...@4ax.com:
How's your son doing? Have you heard from him lately, loser?
Tedn'...@bldl.com
Nice self portrait. Does you real justice.
Your idiotic comment was a complete non-sequiter.
But you're a fucking asshole,
So I expect that.
TnA