FYI: Brooke Shields posed nude in Penthouse when she was 10
ws...@my-deja.com
nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-old in
1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke was
an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for allowing
her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in 1985,
when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
pictures again.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
berge...@hotmail.com
ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
> With all these discussions about when are some actresses going to pose
> nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-old in
> 1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke was
> an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for allowing
> her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in 1985,
> when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
> pictures again.
>
Those same nude pictures of Brooke Shields taken when she was aged 10
were displayed in Manhattan's Fine Art Gallery in 1998, despite a legal
attempt by her to stop them being shown.
Solitude
>With all these discussions about when are some actresses going to pose
>nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-old in
>1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke was
>an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for allowing
>her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in 1985,
>when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
>pictures again.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Brooke posed nude in Playboys Sugar and Spice and they weren't
pornographic.
Steve
NNTP-Posting-Host field in the header (not to mention almost everything
else). I guess this guy feels he needs to post as two people to help
substantiate his claim. In any case, it is unacceptable behavior. So is
cross-posting to unrelated newsgroups.
You must be very new to the news world to just be hearing that Brooke posed
nude when she was 10. That is VERY old news. The photos were by Garry
Gross, published worldwide, not just in Penthouse, and never were full
frontal. Boring.
Post as one person and only in related newsgroups please.
In article <89tpvj$cc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, berge...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <89to02$v6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > With all these discussions about when are some actresses going to pose
> > nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-old in
> > 1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke was
> > an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for allowing
> > her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in 1985,
> > when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
> > pictures again.
> >
>
>
> Those same nude pictures of Brooke Shields taken when she was aged 10
> were displayed in Manhattan's Fine Art Gallery in 1998, despite a legal
> attempt by her to stop them being shown.
>
>
Solitude
>In article <89to02$v6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> With all these discussions about when are some actresses going to pose
>> nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-old in
>> 1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke was
>> an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for allowing
>> her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in 1985,
>> when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
>> pictures again.
>>
>
>
>Those same nude pictures of Brooke Shields taken when she was aged 10
>were displayed in Manhattan's Fine Art Gallery in 1998, despite a legal
>attempt by her to stop them being shown.
And they are still being sold today.
Steve
NNTP-Posting-Host field in the header (not to mention almost everything
else). I guess this guy feels he needs to post as two people to help
substantiate his claim. In any case, it is unacceptable behavior. So is
cross-posting to unrelated newsgroups.
You must be very new to the news world to just be hearing that Brooke posed
nude when she was 10. That is VERY old news. The photos were by Garry
Gross, published worldwide, not just in Penthouse, and never were full
frontal. Boring.
Post as one person and only in related newsgroups please.
newsgroup
nude??? And she had no body when she was younger so not much to look at. She
is gorgeous now.
>
>>With all these discussions about when are some actresses going to pose
>>nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-old in
>>1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke was
>>an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for allowing
>>her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in 1985,
>>when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
>>pictures again.
>>
>>
Michael
Actually, there were full frontal photos in the collection.
But at ten years old, there is no pubic hair, so that is
what made the photos so very controversial.
Steve wrote:
>
> This is the same person posting this stuff, just check out the
> NNTP-Posting-Host field in the header (not to mention almost everything
> else). I guess this guy feels he needs to post as two people to help
> substantiate his claim. In any case, it is unacceptable behavior. So is
> cross-posting to unrelated newsgroups.
>
> You must be very new to the news world to just be hearing that Brooke posed
> nude when she was 10. That is VERY old news. The photos were by Garry
> Gross, published worldwide, not just in Penthouse, and never were full
> frontal. Boring.
>
> Post as one person and only in related newsgroups please.
>
> In article <89tpvj$cc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, berge...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > In article <89to02$v6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > With all these discussions about when are some actresses going to pose
> > > nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-old in
> > > 1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke was
> > > an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for allowing
> > > her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in 1985,
> > > when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
> > > pictures again.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Those same nude pictures of Brooke Shields taken when she was aged 10
> > were displayed in Manhattan's Fine Art Gallery in 1998, despite a legal
> > attempt by her to stop them being shown.
> >
> >
Cyber Freeze
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Solitude
>
>Actually, there were full frontal photos in the collection.
>But at ten years old, there is no pubic hair, so that is
>what made the photos so very controversial.
They were and still are air brushed.
Yawn.............................................................
>
>
>
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> This is the same person posting this stuff, just check out the
>> NNTP-Posting-Host field in the header (not to mention almost everything
>> else). I guess this guy feels he needs to post as two people to help
>> substantiate his claim. In any case, it is unacceptable behavior. So is
>> cross-posting to unrelated newsgroups.
>>
>> You must be very new to the news world to just be hearing that Brooke posed
>> nude when she was 10. That is VERY old news. The photos were by Garry
>> Gross, published worldwide, not just in Penthouse, and never were full
>> frontal. Boring.
>>
>> Post as one person and only in related newsgroups please.
You're right and I wish this crossposting would stop between
the groups. This stuff is still very old news and Brooke as an adult
is still proving her positive skills as being a talented actress and
model. That's the bottom line.
The original poster must have read The Star, Globe, National
Inquirer due to his lack of true information and intelligence.
Cyber Freeze
kralok
olds
kralok
shit about a 10 yr old being nude. Get an AVS password and go to
the kp sites already
Hex
opinion, it doesn't even have any relevance to this whole Biel thing anyhow.
A ten year old kid that is told to pose nude for her mother doesn't know
that there's anything wrong about it... The poor kid probably got taken
advantage of and most likely a little messed up from the experience, and all
you can do is argue whether it's full-frontal or not.... Get a better
hobby!
And wsbv, if you "Yawn" to this reply, you are acknowledging that you are a
stupid idiot with nothing better to do than read about kiddie porn and
nothing better to say than "Yawn"
Hex
kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote in message
news:38C48032...@gateway.net...
ws...@my-deja.com
po...@kuhndf.com (Steve) wrote:
> This is the same person posting this stuff, just check out the
> NNTP-Posting-Host field in the header (not to mention almost
everything
> else). I guess this guy feels he needs to post as two people to help
> substantiate his claim. In any case, it is unacceptable behavior.
So is
> cross-posting to unrelated newsgroups.
>
> You must be very new to the news world to just be hearing that Brooke
posed
> nude when she was 10. That is VERY old news. The photos were by
Garry
> Gross, published worldwide, not just in Penthouse, and never were full
> frontal. Boring.
>
> Post as one person and only in related newsgroups please.
>
>
> > In article <89to02$v6k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > With all these discussions about when are some actresses going to
pose
> > > nude, I remember reading that when Brooke Shields was 10-years-
old in
> > > 1975, she posed nude in Penthouse. You see, way back then, Brooke
was
> > > an unknown and her mother needed the 500 dollars she got for
allowing
> > > her daughter to strip for the adult magazine. Ten years later in
1985,
> > > when Brooke was 20 and a huge superstar, Penthouse published those
> > > pictures again.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Those same nude pictures of Brooke Shields taken when she was aged
10
> > were displayed in Manhattan's Fine Art Gallery in 1998, despite a
legal
> > attempt by her to stop them being shown.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
Many people on Usenet have more than 1 username and many people on
Usenet crosspost, I'm not the only one. Buh-Bye. LOL!
ws...@my-deja.com
Since...@webtv.net (Carrie) wrote:
> why would penthouse do a spread of a 10 year old girl. she has nothing
> to see.
>
> Love,
> Carrie
>
Because there are some pedophiles who buy that magazine, and like
seeing 10-year-olds nude, the same pedophiles who liked "Pretty Baby",
she was 12 when she made that movie, and she did a nude scene and like
the nude pics she had nothing to see.
ws...@my-deja.com
and
> I think your source is wrong.
>
> Love,
> Carrie
>
Brooke was 10 when the nude pics were taken, go to
http://us.imdb.com/Bio?Shields,+Brooke in her bio it says that she
posed nude when she was 10. Btw, her so-called overprotective mother
allowed Brooke to pose nude at 10 and do a nude scene, first when she
was 12 in Pretty Baby and then at 14 in The Blue Lagoon.
ws...@my-deja.com
kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote:
> probably has sex with himself also, while looking at pics of 10 yr
> olds
Like Solitude would say: Yawn...................
ws...@my-deja.com
kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote:
> I can't believe the number of people (perverts) who really give a
> shit about a 10 yr old being nude. Get an AVS password and go to
> the kp sites already
Yawn...................
ws...@my-deja.com
kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote:
> probably has sex with himself also, while looking at pics of 10 yr
> olds
James E.
<8a2136$ult$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> sapmmed teh flowign in alt.fan.britney-
spears:
>Yawn...................
Do you post nothing but "me too-esque" posts?
--
James is:
- A Lootenant of teh 3|337 3r6471c 4rmy
- Webmaster of the Carrot Juicer http://jre.hostingcheck.com/carrot
===ALL HAIL GOLLOS OR DON'T!===
"do you claim to have ESPN and can read his mind?"
<slrn8c524i....@gurcragntba.pbz>
Solitude
>probably has sex with himself also, while looking at pics of 10 yr
>olds
As long as he doesn't do it in here. What he does with his own time is
his business. I don't want to hear about it.
Please end this thread.
ws...@my-deja.com
"Hex" <he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. Who frigging cares about some ten year old posing nude? In
my
> opinion, it doesn't even have any relevance to this whole Biel thing
anyhow.
> A ten year old kid that is told to pose nude for her mother doesn't
know
> that there's anything wrong about it... The poor kid probably got
taken
> advantage of and most likely a little messed up from the experience,
and all
> you can do is argue whether it's full-frontal or not.... Get a better
> hobby!
>
> And wsbv, if you "Yawn" to this reply, you are acknowledging that you
are a
> stupid idiot with nothing better to do than read about kiddie porn and
> nothing better to say than "Yawn"
>
> Hex
>
> kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote in message
> news:38C48032...@gateway.net...
> > shit about a 10 yr old being nude. Get an AVS password and go to
> > the kp sites already
>
I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid thread
is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing a nude scene
at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
ws...@my-deja.com
"Hex" <he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. Who frigging cares about some ten year old posing nude? In
my
> opinion, it doesn't even have any relevance to this whole Biel thing
anyhow.
> A ten year old kid that is told to pose nude for her mother doesn't
know
> that there's anything wrong about it... The poor kid probably got
taken
> advantage of and most likely a little messed up from the experience,
and all
> you can do is argue whether it's full-frontal or not.... Get a better
> hobby!
>
> And wsbv, if you "Yawn" to this reply, you are acknowledging that you
are a
> stupid idiot with nothing better to do than read about kiddie porn and
> nothing better to say than "Yawn"
>
> Hex
>
> kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote in message
> news:38C48032...@gateway.net...
> > I can't believe the number of people (perverts) who really give a
> > shit about a 10 yr old being nude. Get an AVS password and go to
> > the kp sites already
>
Btw, Brooke once said that when she posed nude at 10 and did the nude
scene at 12, she was very innocent and naive about it, that she didn't
think there was anything wrong about it.
Solitude
>
>I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid thread
>is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
>topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
>kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
>Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing a nude scene
>at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
Get lost. Nobody wants to argue with you.
Solitude
>
>Btw, Brooke once said that when she posed nude at 10 and did the nude
>scene at 12, she was very innocent and naive about it, that she didn't
>think there was anything wrong about it.
>
See the date on the mag? What else is new son?
Solitude
Then write to the movie studio like the others back then. See what
they tell you.
You may still purchase the video tapes and cdv's.
Solitude
>Brooke was 10 when the nude pics were taken, go to
>http://us.imdb.com/Bio?Shields,+Brooke in her bio it says that she
>posed nude when she was 10. Btw, her so-called overprotective mother
>allowed Brooke to pose nude at 10 and do a nude scene, first when she
>was 12 in Pretty Baby and then at 14 in The Blue Lagoon.
>
With love and kisses from Brooke.
Solitude
Solitude
>In article <38C47F8D...@gateway.net>,
> kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote:
>> probably has sex with himself also, while looking at pics of 10 yr
>> olds
>
>
>Yawn...................
I think so.
Solitude
<cyberfree...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Brooke *had* pubic hair but it was airbrushed.
>
And I know who did it.
Solitude
wrote:
>oops. looks like you have a partner in wsbv
Solitude
wrote:
>so far in this thread, "kralok" is the only one dicussing jerking off to 10
>year olds and perverts and kp, does he have a problem? everyone else is
>dicussing what happened to brooke and the situations she went through.
Solitude
wrote:
>has she ever said what effect it had on her mindset about the career she's
>chosen?
instigator
year olds and perverts and kp, does he have a problem? everyone else is
dicussing what happened to brooke and the situations she went through.
--
sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
<ws...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8a210c$ulf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38C48032...@gateway.net>,
> kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote:
> > I can't believe the number of people (perverts) who really give a
> > shit about a 10 yr old being nude. Get an AVS password and go to
> > the kp sites already
>
> Yawn...................
instigator
--
sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
<ws...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8a2bp4$5ko$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <_a0x4.1648$Dj3....@news.uswest.net>,
> "Hex" <he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree. Who frigging cares about some ten year old posing nude? In
> my
> > opinion, it doesn't even have any relevance to this whole Biel thing
> anyhow.
> > A ten year old kid that is told to pose nude for her mother doesn't
> know
> > that there's anything wrong about it... The poor kid probably got
> taken
> > advantage of and most likely a little messed up from the experience,
> and all
> > you can do is argue whether it's full-frontal or not.... Get a better
> > hobby!
> >
> > And wsbv, if you "Yawn" to this reply, you are acknowledging that you
> are a
> > stupid idiot with nothing better to do than read about kiddie porn and
> > nothing better to say than "Yawn"
> >
> > Hex
> >
> > kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote in message
> > news:38C48032...@gateway.net...
> > > I can't believe the number of people (perverts) who really give a
> > > shit about a 10 yr old being nude. Get an AVS password and go to
> > > the kp sites already
> >
>
> I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid thread
> is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
> topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
> kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
> Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing a nude scene
> at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
>
>
instigator
chosen?
--
sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
"Solitude" <y2k_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DOXEOIhATMSZch...@4ax.com...
ws...@my-deja.com
Solitude wrote:
>
>See the date on the mag? What else is new son?
>
What else is new? Uh, did you see the pics on this website?
>
http://www.thewomaninthechild.com/
>
They are from 1975 when Brooke Shields was 10....
Solitude
>
>Btw, Brooke once said that when she posed nude at 10 and did the nude
>scene at 12, she was very innocent and naive about it, that she didn't
>think there was anything wrong about it.
>
Solitude
>>
>
>I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid thread
>is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
>topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
>kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
>Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing a nude scene
>at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
Then write to the movie studio like the others back then. See what
Solitude
ws...@my-deja.com
Solitude wrote:
> >
> >See the date on the mag? What else is new son?
> >
>
What else is new? Uh, did you see the pics on this website?
> >
http://www.thewomaninthechild.com/
> >
They are from 1975 when Brooke Shields was 10....
> >
> >
Oh, and she is nude...
ws...@my-deja.com
Solitude wrote:
> >
> >See the date on the mag? What else is new son?
> >
>
What else is new? Uh, did you see the pics on this website?
> >
http://www.thewomaninthechild.com/
> >
They are from 1975 when Brooke Shields was 10....
> >
> >
Oh, and she is nude... Buh-Bye...
Solitude
>
>
> Solitude wrote:
>> >
>> >See the date on the mag? What else is new son?
>> >
>>
> What else is new? Uh, did you see the pics on this website?
>> >
> http://www.thewomaninthechild.com/
>> >
> They are from 1975 when Brooke Shields was 10....
>> >
>> >
>
>Oh, and she is nude... Buh-Bye...
Yes she is. Take care and have a nice life.
Solitude
>
>
>Solitude wrote:
>>
>>See the date on the mag? What else is new son?
>>
>
>What else is new? Uh, did you see the pics on this website?
>>
>http://www.thewomaninthechild.com/
>>
>They are from 1975 when Brooke Shields was 10....
>>
You're kind of late pal. About 20 years or so. I originally saw
these in a European PHOTO magazine of the arts.
So what else is new?
Anthony Giampa
problems!
- - -
Anthony Giampa, Impe...@aol.com *remove SpamSux to email*
Rookie Drummer, Surf Music Lover, Jazz Newbie, Addicted Drum Tinkerer
Website: http://www.geocities.com/area51/dunes/6895/index.html
ws...@my-deja.com
Yeah, I'm 25 years late, LOL!!! It was in 1975, 25 years ago that
those nude pics of a then 10-year-old Brooke Shields were taken... But
I wasn't alive 25 years ago...
ws...@my-deja.com
I wasn't alive 25 years ago... Buh-Bye...
ws...@my-deja.com
impe...@aol.comSpamSux (Anthony Giampa) wrote:
> That's nude. But if anyone's getting off to that They've got thier own
> problems!
>
> - - -
Yeah, anyone who is turned on by pics of a nude 10-year-old Brooke
Shields or jacking off to those pics needs help! Buh-Bye...
Paul Hyett
from my doze, I hastily scrawled -
>
>I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid thread
>is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
>topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
>kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
In the UK, as long as you're 16, that's OK.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett - The Wild Frame Grabber of the Net!
Website at http://www.activist.demon.co.uk/USsitcoms/
t2000
it is a very popular poster.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
instigator
--
sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
"Solitude" <y2k_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tOTFODZshD1S9p...@4ax.com...
hugo...@my-deja.com
Brooke Shields was beautiful when she was 10, she was already a stunner!
Solitude
wrote:
>why do you keep posting the same pics over and over?
Why do you people insist on disturbing this Brooke Shields newsgroup
and crossposting too it?
Solitude
No crossposting to afb-s please.
Solitude
>In article <20000308024400...@ng-xe1.aol.com>,
> impe...@aol.comSpamSux (Anthony Giampa) wrote:
>> That's nude. But if anyone's getting off to that They've got thier own
>> problems!
>>
>> - - -
>
>Yeah, anyone who is turned on by pics of a nude 10-year-old Brooke
>Shields or jacking off to those pics needs help! Buh-Bye...
>
>
Solitude
>I wasn't alive 25 years ago... Buh-Bye...
Solitude
>In article <JuzFOAVmcxJxWJ...@4ax.com>,
> y2k_so...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:02:02 GMT, ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Solitude wrote:
>> >>
>> >>See the date on the mag? What else is new son?
>> >>
>> >
>> >What else is new? Uh, did you see the pics on this website?
>> >>
>> >http://www.thewomaninthechild.com/
>> >>
>> >They are from 1975 when Brooke Shields was 10....
>> >>
>>
>> You're kind of late pal. About 20 years or so. I originally saw
>> these in a European PHOTO magazine of the arts.
>>
>> So what else is new?
>
>
>Yeah, I'm 25 years late, LOL!!! It was in 1975, 25 years ago that
>those nude pics of a then 10-year-old Brooke Shields were taken... But
>I wasn't alive 25 years ago...
>
>
snooze
snooze
James E.
ac117vN...@hotmail.com.invalid (snooze) in mesaije
<03c7cc18...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com> sapmmed teh flowign in
alt.fan.britney-spears:
>Agree.
You agree with WHAT, you fuckhead? Do you realize when you snip the
context we have NO FUCKING CLUE what the hell you're talking about!?
Figure out how the hell usenet operates before you dive in. Good Christ...
--
James is:
- A Lootenant of teh 3|337 3r6471c 4rmy
- Webmaster of the Carrot Juicer http://jre.hostingcheck.com/carrot
"Don't listen to him. We love cross-posting here at alt.nerd.obsessive"
Steven R. Mills in <8a4leo$fps$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
"How do you steam clams? Insult their religion"
Jonny Carson on $cientology
James E.
ac117vN...@hotmail.com.invalid (snooze) in mesaije
<046f7b98...@usw-ex0102-084.remarq.com> sapmmed teh flowign in
alt.fan.britney-spears:
>Brooke Shields was already a sex symbol when she was 10...
Pervert.
Georg Litty
>Why do you people insist on disturbing this Brooke Shields newsgroup
>and crossposting too it?
Georg <><
ge...@litty-online.de * Jesus died to save you! * http://www.litty-online.de
Cyber Freeze
Chabert is now.
Cyber Freeze
Georg Litty
>When Brooke Shields was 10-years-old she was sexier than
>Beverley Mitchell is now.
Bev is a great actress. I don´t care how "sexy" she is. (Doesn´t that
depend to the viewer?)
instigator
it automatically includes the ngs you included in YOUR posts.eliminate the
ngs from your posts it doesnt pertain to and most of the problem goes away.
--
sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
"Solitude" <y2k_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9EPHOLfLpXeCcV...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 02:45:48 GMT, "instigator" <ccos...@twcny.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >why do you keep posting the same pics over and over?
>
Solitude
wrote:
>because you idiot, when someone replies to newsgroup on one of your posts
>it automatically includes the ngs you included in YOUR posts.eliminate the
>ngs from your posts it doesnt pertain to and most of the problem goes away.
Look asshole. It doesn't work too well when you also crosspost does
it? Get real and get lost.
instigator
newsgroups field.
--
sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
"Solitude" <y2k_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:moXIOK8C=xksaPYODQ...@4ax.com...
Brooke Fan
wrote:
>i only respond to the posts, i dont add or subtract anything from the
>newsgroups field.
>
Why don't you then? The other groups could care less about Brooke
Shields. Is that really too hard to understand?
MJ
daughter's 12-year-old friends playing in a pool or jerking off to Brooke
Shields doing a sex scene at the same age?
I'd say both cases = deranged person.
If you're gettin' off on that Brooke Shields crap and you're over 16, I
think you need psychological help. I don't care if you can purchase the
video's...that just fall's into the category of free choice...and that's
fine by me, but if you're buying the movie b/c you like it, that's one
thing, if you're buying it to get off, then take a razor blade to your
wrists b4 your pedophile tendencies get you in real trouble. If that
happens, you won't be on the alt.fan.britney-spears newsgroup, someone will
be posting your name on the alt.pedophile.watch.(insert.name.here) group.
speaking of which, this is the Spears list, so I guess this wasn't even
called for, but had to get in my 2 cents worth.
Solitude <y2k_so...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:teTFOEaWdJcJLi...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:40:20 GMT, ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid thread
> >is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
> >topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
> >kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
> >Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing a nude scene
> >at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
>
> Then write to the movie studio like the others back then. See what
> they tell you.
>
> You may still purchase the video tapes and cdv's.
>
Doug Browning
seems to have gotten messed up this past season. What were they doing with it?
There was nothing wrong with it before, but theychanged it anyway. And now, it
hasn't even been on in weeks.
Hex wrote:
> I agree. Who frigging cares about some ten year old posing nude? In my
> opinion, it doesn't even have any relevance to this whole Biel thing anyhow.
> A ten year old kid that is told to pose nude for her mother doesn't know
> that there's anything wrong about it... The poor kid probably got taken
> advantage of and most likely a little messed up from the experience, and all
> you can do is argue whether it's full-frontal or not.... Get a better
> hobby!
>
> And wsbv, if you "Yawn" to this reply, you are acknowledging that you are a
> stupid idiot with nothing better to do than read about kiddie porn and
> nothing better to say than "Yawn"
>
> Hex
>
> kralok <kra...@gateway.net> wrote in message
> news:38C48032...@gateway.net...
> > I can't believe the number of people (perverts) who really give a
> > shit about a 10 yr old being nude. Get an AVS password and go to
> > the kp sites already
--
Doug Browning
doug...@mb.imag.net
www.mb.imag.net/~wpg750
MJ
sounds like you've got your own problems, otherwise you wouldn't let it
bother you so much. Take a pill loser.
instigator <ccos...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oriz4.18008$W5.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> you know, you fuckers doing your phycalogical exams of other posters are
> just as bad as the jerkoffs getting off on the pics they're discussing.
> sounds like guilty consciences talking yourself. just ignore the fuckers
> instead of a holier than thou rant.
>
> --
> sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
> "MJ" <psu0...@pdx.edu> wrote in message
> news:8ag2il$1uj$1...@starbug.oit.pdx.edu...
instigator
MJ
dickless huh? You must be a little kid. Give me a break. To personally
attack a person you don't even know is a sure fire sign of A)an insecure
person, or B)someone who himself is dickless and feels so ashamed that he
wants assurance that someone else out there is as small as he.
All I said is cry me a river. You're a whiney little bitch crying about
everything. Get a life.
You are a loser and I am thru with you. I'm sure you'll post again b/c
you're immature and determined to get the last word in, so be it...I've
spoke my peace. get some rest lil kid. go breast feed off mommy.
instigator <ccos...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ccDz4.18467$W5.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> you're the loser, dickless. i musta hit too close to the truth.
>
> --
> sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
> "MJ" <psu0...@pdx.edu> wrote in message
> news:8akf65$llb$1...@starbug.oit.pdx.edu...
> > cry me a river bitch.
> >
> > sounds like you've got your own problems, otherwise you wouldn't let it
> > bother you so much. Take a pill loser.
> >
> >
> > instigator <ccos...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:oriz4.18008$W5.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
instigator
CoStar
wrote:
>you're the loser, dickless. i musta hit too close to the truth.
>
>--
>sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
I see we're all having our fill of newsgroup retards.
CoStar
>
>dickless huh? You must be a little kid. Give me a break. To personally
>attack a person you don't even know is a sure fire sign of A)an insecure
>person, or B)someone who himself is dickless and feels so ashamed that he
>wants assurance that someone else out there is as small as he.
>
>All I said is cry me a river. You're a whiney little bitch crying about
>everything. Get a life.
>
>You are a loser and I am thru with you. I'm sure you'll post again b/c
>you're immature and determined to get the last word in, so be it...I've
>spoke my peace. get some rest lil kid. go breast feed off mommy.
b/c? I see we're all getting our fill of these newsgroup
retards. Notice how they (the retards) all act the same? The natives
wouldn't tolerate it. They would distroy the sick at birth. A dam good
idea as far as I'm concerned. Hitler had another idea but it was the
same principle as the natives. He just did it with the older retards
and degenerates. All the other nations send America their fuck ups
by boat. This is why we have today a totally screwed up nation.
At least in Texas and New Mexico, the good ole boys have something
interesting to do, like shooting off some rounds and using the illegal
aliens as target practice. A sport I truly support.
>
>instigator <ccos...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:ccDz4.18467$W5.2...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
>> you're the loser, dickless. i musta hit too close to the truth.
>>
>> --
>> sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
James E.
declare:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:35:18 -0800, "MJ" <psu0...@pdx.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>dickless huh? You must be a little kid. Give me a break. To
>>personally attack a person you don't even know is a sure fire sign of
>>A)an insecure person, or B)someone who himself is dickless and feels so
>>ashamed that he wants assurance that someone else out there is as small
>>as he.
>>
>>All I said is cry me a river. You're a whiney little bitch crying
>>about everything. Get a life.
>>
>>You are a loser and I am thru with you. I'm sure you'll post again b/c
>>you're immature and determined to get the last word in, so be it...I've
>>spoke my peace. get some rest lil kid. go breast feed off mommy.
>
> b/c? I see we're all getting our fill of these newsgroup
>retards. Notice how they (the retards) all act the same? The natives
>wouldn't tolerate it. They would distroy the sick at birth. A dam good
>idea as far as I'm concerned. Hitler had another idea but it was the
>same principle as the natives. He just did it with the older retards
>and degenerates. All the other nations send America their fuck ups
>by boat. This is why we have today a totally screwed up nation.
>At least in Texas and New Mexico, the good ole boys have something
>interesting to do, like shooting off some rounds and using the illegal
>aliens as target practice. A sport I truly support.
You're clearly being satirical, as no one is truly this stupid and can
breath on their own. As such, I refuse to respond to your blatant
trolling.
--
James is a Lootenant of teh 3|337 3r6471c 4rmy.
"WTF is "movy"? A word to describe something that is moving? "I can't
catch that car because it's really movy!""
Agent #1 mocks st00pid in <7nt5ik$54o$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>
"I'm sick of having "free speech" shoved down my throat."
AOLer in <20000315004555...@ng-cp1.aol.com>
instigator
what you want, its your right. just dont expect everyone to believe you.
--
sticks and stones will break my bones but whips and chains excite me!
"MJ" <psu0...@pdx.edu> wrote in message
news:8an42v$gh4$1...@starbug.oit.pdx.edu...
>
> dickless huh? You must be a little kid. Give me a break. To personally
> attack a person you don't even know is a sure fire sign of A)an insecure
> person, or B)someone who himself is dickless and feels so ashamed that he
> wants assurance that someone else out there is as small as he.
>
> All I said is cry me a river. You're a whiney little bitch crying about
> everything. Get a life.
>
> You are a loser and I am thru with you. I'm sure you'll post again b/c
> you're immature and determined to get the last word in, so be it...I've
> spoke my peace. get some rest lil kid. go breast feed off mommy.
>
instigator
there you go again, analyzing someone because you're so intelligent.
think
what you want, its your right. just dont expect everyone to believe
you.
Oskar Schindler
<8ag2il$1uj$1...@starbug.oit.pdx.edu>...
> is there a difference between someone jerking off to home movies of his
> daughter's 12-year-old friends playing in a pool or jerking off to Brooke
> Shields doing a sex scene at the same age?
>
> I'd say both cases = deranged person.
I'd say that you are a deranged person. You are sick.
Let's face it. Sexuality is the most natural thing in the world.
There are many kind of sexual perversions, such as homosexuality,
sado-masochism, negrophilia, zoophilia etc. However, the most
pervert of all the perversions is anti-sexuality. After all, it differs
most from the natural sexuality. And that is the sickness you have.
It is natural to feel sexual desire towards the opposite sex.
It is the most important basic instinct of all living creatures.
The strongest desire is caused by someone who is likely
to be the best possible mate. For a male human, the best
possible mate is a female human who has just reached
maturity. Such a woman is likely to be healthy and she
has the best chances to produce many healthy children,
and to live long enough to take care of them.
Female humans reach maturity at the average age of 12 years.
Therefore, every normal man finds a 12 years old girl the most
attractive and sexually most desirable. It is just that the twisted
morals of our society does not allow to admit that.
> If you're gettin' off on that Brooke Shields crap and you're over 16, I
> think you need psychological help.
You are the one who needs psychological help. You are sick.
> I don't care if you can purchase the
> video's...that just fall's into the category of free choice...and that's
> fine by me, but if you're buying the movie b/c you like it, that's one
> thing, if you're buying it to get off, then take a razor blade to your
> wrists b4 your pedophile tendencies get you in real trouble.
So you say that it is alright to watch a movie as long as you do
not enjoy it? Why do you not want people to enjoy themselves?
I think you are a sadistic pervert. You want to hurt other people.
It is people like you who build concentration camps and torture chambers.
It is people like you who rape, torture and murder children.
In a word, you are an anti-pedophile.
Definition of anti-pedophile:
1. Child-hater
2. Sadistic pervert who enjoys hurting innocent, defenseles victims
such as children and child-lovers.
And for wsbv...
> > On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:40:20 GMT, ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > >I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid
thread
> > >is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
> > >topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
> > >kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
> > >Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing a nude scene
> > >at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
Wsbv, yuou are dead wrong. A nude picture is NOT porn.
And there is nothing wrong about nude picture of a child.
Only a picture of a child being hurt is a bad thing.
But it is not the picture, but the hurting that is bad.
James E.
and declare:
>MJ <psu0...@pdx.edu> wrote in article
><8ag2il$1uj$1...@starbug.oit.pdx.edu>...
>> is there a difference between someone jerking off to home movies of
>> his daughter's 12-year-old friends playing in a pool or jerking off to
>> Brooke Shields doing a sex scene at the same age?
>>
>> I'd say both cases = deranged person.
>
>I'd say that you are a deranged person. You are sick.
You're the one supporting pedophilia.
>Let's face it. Sexuality is the most natural thing in the world.
>There are many kind of sexual perversions, such as homosexuality,
>sado-masochism, negrophilia, zoophilia etc. However, the most
^^^^^^^^^^^
What's wrong with being attracted to black people?
>pervert of all the perversions is anti-sexuality. After all, it differs
>most from the natural sexuality. And that is the sickness you have.
Pedophilia is by far a greater perversion than homosexuality or
"negrophilia".
>It is natural to feel sexual desire towards the opposite sex.
>It is the most important basic instinct of all living creatures.
>The strongest desire is caused by someone who is likely
>to be the best possible mate. For a male human, the best
>possible mate is a female human who has just reached
>maturity.
Not who has just reached maturity. Who *IS* mature.
>Such a woman is likely to be healthy and she
>has the best chances to produce many healthy children,
>and to live long enough to take care of them.
>
>Female humans reach maturity at the average age of 12 years.
Try 13-14.
>Therefore, every normal man finds a 12 years old girl the most
>attractive and sexually most desirable.
I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing I'm not normal because I do not
find sexually immature girls as sexy as you do.
>It is just that the twisted
>morals of our society does not allow to admit that.
The twisted morals of society refuse to allow us to find 16-17 year old
girls sexually attractive, when they are aware of their sexuality. 12 year
olds cannot give informed consent to sexual intercourse, and they are NOT
sexually mature.
>> If you're gettin' off on that Brooke Shields crap and you're over 16,
>> I think you need psychological help.
>
>You are the one who needs psychological help. You are sick.
He thinks pedophiles are sick. Sure, I don't understand his cut-off date
of 16, but he's well-intended in his being against pedophilia.
>> I don't care if you can purchase the
>> video's...that just fall's into the category of free choice...and
>> that's fine by me, but if you're buying the movie b/c you like it,
>> that's one thing, if you're buying it to get off, then take a razor
>> blade to your wrists b4 your pedophile tendencies get you in real
>> trouble.
>
>So you say that it is alright to watch a movie as long as you do
>not enjoy it? Why do you not want people to enjoy themselves?
>I think you are a sadistic pervert. You want to hurt other people.
YOU'RE the one who says it's fine to fuck a 12 year old!!!
>It is people like you who build concentration camps and torture
>chambers. It is people like you who rape, torture and murder children.
>In a word, you are an anti-pedophile.
Anti-pedophilia is good. It's attacking the molestors and saving the
children.
>Definition of anti-pedophile:
> 1. Child-hater
> 2. Sadistic pervert who enjoys hurting innocent, defenseles victims
> such as children and child-lovers.
Number two is a definition of a pedophile (minus the "child-lover" part at
the end. Love does NOT equal forced sexual relations).
>And for wsbv...
>> > On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:40:20 GMT, ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid
>thread
>> > >is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
>> > >topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is
>> > >not kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses
>> > >topless. Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing
>> > >a nude scene at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
>
>Wsbv, yuou are dead wrong. A nude picture is NOT porn.
If it is meant to arouse, as the Brooke pictures are, then they are porn.
>And there is nothing wrong about nude picture of a child.
>Only a picture of a child being hurt is a bad thing.
>But it is not the picture, but the hurting that is bad.
I suppose you think a picture of a three year old getting triple penetrated
is "love" as well.
Do you happen to know/be a friend of Richard "St00pid" Bullis, by any
chance?
[alt.usenet.kooks added]
--
James is a Lootenant of teh 3|337 3r6471c 4rmy.
"I'm sick of having "free speech" shoved down my throat."
AOLer in <20000315004555...@ng-cp1.aol.com>
"Thank you for your email. This Internet of yours is a wonderful invention"
Dubbya Bush in an email to Al Gore
belated
Maybe you can just ignore the flamers that need the special attention
that mommy can't supply them with. That's not our job here on usenet.
It's also not worth talking about and crossposting in groups that have
no interest.
Don't feed the flamers. That's mommy's job.
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 18:08:18 GMT, "Oskar Schindler "
<schi...@heaven.org> wrote:
>MJ <psu0...@pdx.edu> wrote in article
><8ag2il$1uj$1...@starbug.oit.pdx.edu>...
>> is there a difference between someone jerking off to home movies of his
>> daughter's 12-year-old friends playing in a pool or jerking off to Brooke
>> Shields doing a sex scene at the same age?
>>
>> I'd say both cases = deranged person.
>
>I'd say that you are a deranged person. You are sick.
>
>Let's face it. Sexuality is the most natural thing in the world.
>There are many kind of sexual perversions, such as homosexuality,
>sado-masochism, negrophilia, zoophilia etc. However, the most
>pervert of all the perversions is anti-sexuality. After all, it differs
>most from the natural sexuality. And that is the sickness you have.
>
>It is natural to feel sexual desire towards the opposite sex.
>It is the most important basic instinct of all living creatures.
>The strongest desire is caused by someone who is likely
>to be the best possible mate. For a male human, the best
>possible mate is a female human who has just reached
>maturity. Such a woman is likely to be healthy and she
>has the best chances to produce many healthy children,
>and to live long enough to take care of them.
>
>Female humans reach maturity at the average age of 12 years.
>Therefore, every normal man finds a 12 years old girl the most
>attractive and sexually most desirable. It is just that the twisted
>morals of our society does not allow to admit that.
>
>> If you're gettin' off on that Brooke Shields crap and you're over 16, I
>> think you need psychological help.
>
>You are the one who needs psychological help. You are sick.
>
>> I don't care if you can purchase the
>> video's...that just fall's into the category of free choice...and that's
>> fine by me, but if you're buying the movie b/c you like it, that's one
>> thing, if you're buying it to get off, then take a razor blade to your
>> wrists b4 your pedophile tendencies get you in real trouble.
>
>So you say that it is alright to watch a movie as long as you do
>not enjoy it? Why do you not want people to enjoy themselves?
>I think you are a sadistic pervert. You want to hurt other people.
>It is people like you who build concentration camps and torture chambers.
>It is people like you who rape, torture and murder children.
>In a word, you are an anti-pedophile.
>
>Definition of anti-pedophile:
> 1. Child-hater
> 2. Sadistic pervert who enjoys hurting innocent, defenseles victims
> such as children and child-lovers.
>
>And for wsbv...
>> > On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:40:20 GMT, ws...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > >I'm far from being a pedophile, the reason I started this stupid
>thread
>> > >is because you people whine and complain about Jessica Biel posing
>> > >topless when she was just 2 weeks shy of her 18th birthday. It is not
>> > >kiddie porn when a young woman who is so close to 18 poses topless.
>> > >Brooke Shields posing (full-frontal) nude at 10 and doing a nude scene
>> > >at 12, now that IS kiddie porn.
>
>Wsbv, yuou are dead wrong. A nude picture is NOT porn.
belated
How about seeking that special attention that you deserve at a group
center devoted to people like you in your neighborhood. You can rap
with them about your problems instead of taking them here in the
groups that have no interest with you and your posts.
Thank You.
On 17 Mar 2000 19:01:12 GMT, jreSTOPTH...@jre.hostingcheck.com
Scott G
this mindless thread.
Thanks
Fred Ziffel
[top-posting fixed]
So 'belated', are you saying that you support the self-admitted
pedophile and wanna-be babyfucker Richard S. Bullis of Wisconsin
Rapids, Wisconsin? If so, why?
--
Fred Ziffel
zif...@lart.com
Ziffel/Major/Public Relations/1st Virginia Volunteers/CEsium Brigade
Enjoying Usenet at the expense of the stupid.
On the Sabu424 list of net.hate
http://jillscott.tripod.com/sabu424v4.html
as well as Erik Mouse's Roster of Horrors
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=550835979&fmt=text
Official Enemy of the retard known as Progator
http://www.geocities.com/progator_amc/enemies.html
"THIS _____IS_____CONTROL_____FREAK AND DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR---
GET OUT, SHUT UP AND FUCK OFF---
YOU-----------ARE---------WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!"
- Edmond Wollmann Overdrive, performing live in
Message-ID: <38A7B4...@earthlink.net>
http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
Read about the number one menace to children on the
internet at http://www.lart.com/stupidrichard/rtsfaq.html
"I find properly dressed children, and adult women, sexually stimulating."
- Richard Bullis in Message-ID: <38a59...@news.uncensored-news.com>
"Are you man enough to admit you HAVE HAD fantasies invovling a child?"
- Richard Bullis in Message-ID: <38a59...@news.uncensored-news.com>
"Perhaps I'll come over and fuck your baby then huh?"
- Richard Bullis in Message-ID: <38a3a...@news.uncensored-news.com>
WolfMan
The problem is being taken care off. Lets not add to it as it only
adds to the nonsense.