WARNING: Simpson's page contains child porn
David Blazina
Doc Quack posted the address for his Simpson's page
http://home.att.net/~docquack that contains drawings by Doc Quack depicting
the Simpson's children performing various sexual acts with each other.
There is also a depiction of bestiality involving a child of the Simpson
family. I have no problem with people creating fan sites of The Simpsons,
but Doc's using the Simpson children for his kiddie porn fantasies is
disgusting.
While only cartoons and drawings, this still constitutes child pornography.
He didn't draw the adult characters of The Simpsons in sexual situations,
he chose to draw *children* performing graphic sexual acts. I guess this
explains why Lisa is his favorite character, an 8 year-old girl is a
logical choice for a pedophile.
Apparently Doc Quack thinks we share his sick fantasies. I do not. If you
are offended by child pornography, please voice your disgust about this
AT&T sponsored page to ab...@WorldNet.att.net . You can also contact
http://pedowatch.org/ an organization devoted to stopping the proliferation
of child pornography and pedophiles on the internet. Children and
adolescents who watch The Simpsons frequent this newsgroup and it sickens
me to think they would be lured to a page containing child pornography.
Simon Marriott
On 1 Jan 1998 16:02:58 GMT, "David Blazina"
<Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)
I quite agree - humour is cool, child pornography, whether real or in
cartoon form is sickening.
Simon
Patrick
If you are so disgusted by it, why did you post the URL again for everyone
to see???
--
ZyberGoat
David Blazina wrote in message <68geni$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
David Blazina
Patrick <zzybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<68giru$8...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
> If you are so disgusted by it, why did you post the URL again for
everyone
> to see???
>
So people do not think I am making it up. If people can see it for
themselves, they will be more likely to send a complaint.
Doc Quack
"Patrick" <zzybe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If you are so disgusted by it, why did you post the URL again for everyone
>to see???
Because David Blazima has declared himself to be my absolute enemy, and he did
so before he ever knew that I draw various cartoons.
I can prove this by his previous postings, and email to me.
He is now trying to harass me via my art. He again proves himself to be a very
petty and vindictive person.
As to what I've drawn, I do not consider it as kiddie porn. The only sexually
attractive poses are of the adult females. (as a matter of fact, people have
posted almost all of my drawings here on ATS in the past, and I have requested
that they not do this.)
In fact, David is coming quite close to committing a crime by trying to use the
system as part of his vendetta against me.
I'm mad that he accuses me of luring children in, when I do the exact opposite.
Doc
Doc Quack
"David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Patrick <zzybe...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
><68giru$8...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>> If you are so disgusted by it, why did you post the URL again for
>everyone
>> to see???
>>
>
>So people do not think I am making it up. If people can see it for
>themselves, they will be more likely to send a complaint.
Heh, they might also make up their own minds and see that you're just trying to
use this as a way to get at me. You're one sick puppy, David.
Doc
Paul Jeczalik
In article <68geni$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> "David Blazina" wrote:
>
> Doc Quack posted the address for his Simpson's page
> http://home.att.net/~docquack that contains drawings by Doc Quack
> depicting the Simpson's children performing various sexual acts with
> each other. There is also a depiction of bestiality involving a child
> of the Simpson family. I have no problem with people creating fan
> sites of The Simpsons, but Doc's using the Simpson children for his
> kiddie porn fantasies is disgusting.
>
> While only cartoons and drawings, this still constitutes child
> pornography. He didn't draw the adult characters of The Simpsons in
> sexual situations, he chose to draw *children* performing graphic
> sexual acts. I guess this explains why Lisa is his favorite
> character, an 8 year-old girl is a logical choice for a pedophile.
>
> Apparently Doc Quack thinks we share his sick fantasies. I do not. If
> you are offended by child pornography, please voice your disgust about
> this AT&T sponsored page to ab...@WorldNet.att.net . You can also
> contact http://pedowatch.org/ an organization devoted to stopping the
> proliferation of child pornography and pedophiles on the internet.
> Children and adolescents who watch The Simpsons frequent this
> newsgroup and it sickens me to think they would be lured to a page
> containing child pornography.
If the material offends you, don't look at it. Doc Quack thinking that
we share his sick fantasies is your own biased opinion. He never said
that was the case. Furthermore, you just shared these pictures with all
the children and adolescents reading this newsgroup who didn't find his
post "announcing" the site, but did however encounter yours. How do you
feel now? Also, what has he done to lure children to his web site? Is
he offering them candy? How about Blockbuster CD gift certificates? I
think your accusation here is out of line, regardless of whether his web
page contains disagreeable material.
In the event his web site were closed, that wouldn't prevent these same
youngsters from retrieving this material from any of the other countless
porn sites dealing in cartoons. For every site that is shut down, two
more will spring up, a hundred of these images will be posted to one of
the erotica newsgroups, etc. Idealists much like yourself have been
attempting to rid the internet of filth long before you knew it existed
here, and thus far they have been largely unsuccessful. The internet
will always provide material you find offensive to anyone looking for
it, and some day you'll simply have to accept that fact.
However, if you insist on protesting something and fulfilling your taste
for demagoguery, why don't you concentrate on issues which are a little
more serious than some guy who calls himself "Doc Quack" drawing nasty
images of The Simpsons for his web page. For example, you could form a
group of ruffian watchdogs to patrol your neighborhood in search of real
pedophiles who might be after -human- children, not yellow cartoons. Or
you might consider fighting the -real- child pornography that exists on
the internet, which in my opinion would be ten times worse for any kid
to look at than some dirty comic.
Get a life. Don't worry about trying to safeguard the world. Like was
said, if you don't like it, don't look at it.
Rameses Niblick The Third
On 1 Jan 1998 16:02:58 GMT, "David Blazina"
>Doc Quack posted the address for his Simpson's page
>http://home.att.net/~docquack that contains drawings by Doc Quack depicting
>the Simpson's children performing various sexual acts with each other.
>There is also a depiction of bestiality involving a child of the Simpson
>family. I have no problem with people creating fan sites of The Simpsons,
>but Doc's using the Simpson children for his kiddie porn fantasies is
>disgusting.
I see, so after duscovering this atrocity, you thought the best way to
discourage people from going here was to tell us all about it
including where it was?
Besides why does drawing pictures of kids differ from drawing pictures
of adults???
-
Rameses Niblick The Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove the 2 'at's at each side of the @ in my email address to reply.
Patrick
OK, now I'm not one to condone pornography, and certainly not child
pornography, but it's not a real boy and a real baby have sex with each
other.
As stated previously in this group:
"THE SIMPSONS ARE NOT REAL!!!"
--
ZyberGoat
David Blazina wrote in message <68hnot$t...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><68hn0k$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>> "David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Art? That's a laugh! Drawing pictures of babies and children performing
>> >sexual acts is perverse. Tell me, what makes a baby performing oral sex
>on
>> >a young boy "art" to you?
>> >
>> Yes, it was a pretty common joke. I understand that it's been printed on
>> T-shirts in Ca. It neither promotes kiddie porn, nor titillates. Not
>that it
>> matters to a stalker like you, you're just looking for something to bug
>me
>> about, right?
>
>hmmm.... you draw a *baby* performing oral sex on a *young boy*, and that
>does not promote child pornography. That's logical.
>
>> >> As to what I've drawn, I do not consider it as kiddie porn.
>> >
>> >Oh no, a child having sex with each other and with animals isn't kiddie
>> >porn, of course not.
>> >
>> Most people are smart enough to know that a certain tiger is totally the
>> imagination of a boy, and the concept is about his imagination. Sorry
>that
>> you're too dense to understand that.
>
>I understand that Hobbes is a figment of Calvin's imagination. What I
>don't understand is why you get off on drawing him having sex with a child.
>
>
>> >> In fact, David is coming quite close to committing a crime by trying
>to
>> >use the
>> >> system as part of his vendetta against me.
>> >
>> >At first I just thought you were a rude jerk, but now that I know you're
>a
>> >child pornographer, that's another story altogether.
>>
>> That is a lie of the first order, slander, and you demonstrate your
>twisted
>> mentality.
>
>Slander? Against who? "Doc Quack"? That's a fictitious character, he
>doesn't even exist.
>
>You forging e-mail and posts using my name, on the other hand, is a
>different matter altogether.
>
>And as for demonstrating a "twisted mentality", you're the one who enjoys
>the imagery of a BABY performing oral sex on a YOUNG BOY.
>
lhirsch
David Blazina wrote:
>
> It is really a shame when people consider child pornography a joke.
It is really a shame when people consdier a joke to be child
pornography.
Lance
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>Doc Quack posted the address for his Simpson's page
>http://home.att.net/~docquack that contains drawings by Doc Quack depicting
>the Simpson's children performing various sexual acts with each other.
This is dreadfully. Do you know how these toon porn pictues are created?
Young innocent toons are kidnapped off the streats of springfield, acme
acers and other such places. Then thay are forced to pose naked for hours
on end while perverts create these immages
What is done to these poor toons is inhuman!
[...]
>While only cartoons and drawings, this still constitutes child pornography.
Thats correct in a closed session the UN made a universal law definening
child porn to include pornographic drawings of toons. Now in every
country of the world such things are illegal.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.
Support NoCeM http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68h6fa$b...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>...
You draw a picture of a baby performing oral sex on a young boy, and you
call me sick?
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68h6f9$b...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Patrick" <zzybe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >If you are so disgusted by it, why did you post the URL again for
everyone
> >to see???
>
> Because David Blazima has declared himself to be my absolute enemy, and
he did
> so before he ever knew that I draw various cartoons.
>
> I can prove this by his previous postings, and email to me.
You e-mailed me asking what I thought of you, and I told you.
> He is now trying to harass me via my art.
Art? That's a laugh! Drawing pictures of babies and children performing
sexual acts is perverse. Tell me, what makes a baby performing oral sex on
a young boy "art" to you?
> As to what I've drawn, I do not consider it as kiddie porn.
Oh no, a child having sex with each other and with animals isn't kiddie
porn, of course not.
> In fact, David is coming quite close to committing a crime by trying to
David Blazina
Paul Jeczalik <pj...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in article
>
> If the material offends you, don't look at it.
it's sad you dismiss kiddie porn like this.
> Or
> you might consider fighting the -real- child pornography that exists on
> the internet,
I do.
> Get a life.
Try to rid the internet of child porn peddlers and people tell you to get a
life. How sad.
David Blazina
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote in
article <883700015.609571@cabal>...
> In <68geni$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> "David Blazina"
<Nash...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
> >Doc Quack posted the address for his Simpson's page
> >http://home.att.net/~docquack that contains drawings by Doc Quack
depicting
> >the Simpson's children performing various sexual acts with each other.
>
> This is dreadfully. Do you know how these toon porn pictues are created?
> Young innocent toons are kidnapped off the streats of springfield, acme
> acers and other such places. Then thay are forced to pose naked for
hours
> on end while perverts create these immages
>
> What is done to these poor toons is inhuman!
Doc Quack
"David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><68h6f9$b...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>...
>> "Patrick" <zzybe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If you are so disgusted by it, why did you post the URL again for
>everyone
>> >to see???
>>
>> Because David Blazima has declared himself to be my absolute enemy, and
>he did
>> so before he ever knew that I draw various cartoons.
>>
>> I can prove this by his previous postings, and email to me.
>
>You e-mailed me asking what I thought of you, and I told you.
Actually, I asked why you were jumping my case.
>> He is now trying to harass me via my art.
>
>Art? That's a laugh! Drawing pictures of babies and children performing
>sexual acts is perverse. Tell me, what makes a baby performing oral sex on
>a young boy "art" to you?
>
Yes, it was a pretty common joke. I understand that it's been printed on
T-shirts in Ca. It neither promotes kiddie porn, nor titillates. Not that it
matters to a stalker like you, you're just looking for something to bug me
about, right?
>> As to what I've drawn, I do not consider it as kiddie porn.
>
>Oh no, a child having sex with each other and with animals isn't kiddie
>porn, of course not.
>
Most people are smart enough to know that a certain tiger is totally the
imagination of a boy, and the concept is about his imagination. Sorry that
you're too dense to understand that.
>> In fact, David is coming quite close to committing a crime by trying to
>use the
>> system as part of his vendetta against me.
>
>At first I just thought you were a rude jerk, but now that I know you're a
>child pornographer, that's another story altogether.
That is a lie of the first order, slander, and you demonstrate your twisted
mentality.
Doc
Doc Quack
"David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
When someone tells a stalker to get a life, they lie about their victim. How
pathetic.
Doc
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68hn0k$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> "David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Art? That's a laugh! Drawing pictures of babies and children performing
> >sexual acts is perverse. Tell me, what makes a baby performing oral sex
on
> >a young boy "art" to you?
> >
> Yes, it was a pretty common joke. I understand that it's been printed on
> T-shirts in Ca. It neither promotes kiddie porn, nor titillates. Not
that it
> matters to a stalker like you, you're just looking for something to bug
me
> about, right?
hmmm.... you draw a *baby* performing oral sex on a *young boy*, and that
does not promote child pornography. That's logical.
> >> As to what I've drawn, I do not consider it as kiddie porn.
> >
> >Oh no, a child having sex with each other and with animals isn't kiddie
> >porn, of course not.
> >
> Most people are smart enough to know that a certain tiger is totally the
> imagination of a boy, and the concept is about his imagination. Sorry
that
> you're too dense to understand that.
I understand that Hobbes is a figment of Calvin's imagination. What I
don't understand is why you get off on drawing him having sex with a child.
> >> In fact, David is coming quite close to committing a crime by trying
to
> >use the
> >> system as part of his vendetta against me.
> >
> >At first I just thought you were a rude jerk, but now that I know you're
a
> >child pornographer, that's another story altogether.
>
> That is a lie of the first order, slander, and you demonstrate your
twisted
> mentality.
Slander? Against who? "Doc Quack"? That's a fictitious character, he
doesn't even exist.
You forging e-mail and posts using my name, on the other hand, is a
different matter altogether.
And as for demonstrating a "twisted mentality", you're the one who enjoys
the imagery of a BABY performing oral sex on a YOUNG BOY.
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68hnbk$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> When someone tells a stalker to get a life, they lie about their victim.
How
> pathetic.
Coming from someone who draws child pornography, that's rich. Your sick
lusts are there for the world to see, you accuse me of responding to posts
on usenet.
Doc Quack
Paul Jeczalik <pj...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>If the material offends you, don't look at it. Doc Quack thinking that
>we share his sick fantasies is your own biased opinion. He never said
>that was the case. Furthermore, you just shared these pictures with all
>the children and adolescents reading this newsgroup who didn't find his
>post "announcing" the site, but did however encounter yours. How do you
>feel now? Also, what has he done to lure children to his web site? Is
>he offering them candy? How about Blockbuster CD gift certificates? I
>think your accusation here is out of line, regardless of whether his web
>page contains disagreeable material.
>
Sigh. You must understand that David Blazima is not above telling lies when he
thinks it will harm the person he's going after. As you noticed, the part
about luring children was a complete lie, something we should expect from one
with such a twisted mind.
>In the event his web site were closed, that wouldn't prevent these same
>youngsters from retrieving this material from any of the other countless
>porn sites dealing in cartoons. For every site that is shut down, two
>more will spring up, a hundred of these images will be posted to one of
>the erotica newsgroups, etc. Idealists much like yourself have been
>attempting to rid the internet of filth long before you knew it existed
>here, and thus far they have been largely unsuccessful. The internet
>will always provide material you find offensive to anyone looking for
>it, and some day you'll simply have to accept that fact.
The drawings on my site have all been posted on the web for the past three or
four years. Nobody has had any problem with them, until David found them.
>
>However, if you insist on protesting something and fulfilling your taste
>for demagoguery, why don't you concentrate on issues which are a little
>more serious than some guy who calls himself "Doc Quack" drawing nasty
>images of The Simpsons for his web page. For example, you could form a
>group of ruffian watchdogs to patrol your neighborhood in search of real
>pedophiles who might be after -human- children, not yellow cartoons. Or
>you might consider fighting the -real- child pornography that exists on
>the internet, which in my opinion would be ten times worse for any kid
>to look at than some dirty comic.
David Blazima was out to get rid of me long before he knew of the web site. I
really doubt that he gives a lead farthing about real kiddie porn.
>Get a life. Don't worry about trying to safeguard the world. Like was
>said, if you don't like it, don't look at it.
Good point. I'll note that David didn't say a word about the caution on my page
about being 18 or more to view. Yes, I know that some under aged are going to
lie about their age and sneak in, but we cannot ban all adult material due to
the machinations of some desperate kids.
I begin to suspect that he wants to lead a lynch mob, rather than be a lone
stalker.
Doc
Doc Quack
"David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you, David, but my lusts are for Lisa when she hits 18.
That's obvious to any normal person.
But you spin lies as easily as a spider. Any normal person is going to realize
the venom in your lies and attacks.
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68hpa0$c...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> Sigh. You must understand that David Blazima is not above telling lies
when he
> thinks it will harm the person he's going after.
Telling lies?!? Your site proves I tell the truth.
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> But you spin lies as easily as a spider. Any normal person is going to
realize
> the venom in your lies and attacks.
No Doc, any normal person person will realize you have your drawings of a
BABY performing oral sex on a YOUNG BOY on your site, and realize how
diseased you are.
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> But you spin lies as easily as a spider.
Yeah, all lies. You foolishly provide the truth on your own site.
Oh, you keep mentioning slander. It's not slander if it is true, and your
sick site proves it is true.
Doc Quack
"David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><68hn0k$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>> "David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >Art? That's a laugh! Drawing pictures of babies and children performing
>> >sexual acts is perverse. Tell me, what makes a baby performing oral sex
>on
>> >a young boy "art" to you?
>> >
>> Yes, it was a pretty common joke. I understand that it's been printed on
>> T-shirts in Ca. It neither promotes kiddie porn, nor titillates. Not
>that it
>> matters to a stalker like you, you're just looking for something to bug
>me
>> about, right?
>
>hmmm.... you draw a *baby* performing oral sex on a *young boy*, and that
>does not promote child pornography. That's logical.
>
>> >> As to what I've drawn, I do not consider it as kiddie porn.
>> >
>> >Oh no, a child having sex with each other and with animals isn't kiddie
>> >porn, of course not.
>> >
>> Most people are smart enough to know that a certain tiger is totally the
>> imagination of a boy, and the concept is about his imagination. Sorry
>that
>> you're too dense to understand that.
>
>I understand that Hobbes is a figment of Calvin's imagination. What I
>don't understand is why you get off on drawing him having sex with a child.
>
Ok, I'll grant your wish here and explain the joke. It's just his imagination
and desire starting to develop. You're also in error about me getting off on
it.
>
>> >> In fact, David is coming quite close to committing a crime by trying
>to
>> >use the
>> >> system as part of his vendetta against me.
>> >
>> >At first I just thought you were a rude jerk, but now that I know you're
>a
>> >child pornographer, that's another story altogether.
>>
>> That is a lie of the first order, slander, and you demonstrate your
>twisted
>> mentality.
>
>Slander? Against who? "Doc Quack"? That's a fictitious character, he
>doesn't even exist.
>
Hmmm. That's likely the first true thing you've said here.
However, I am a person, and you've been constantly on my back whenever you could
get a dig in. When I asked you why, you replied that I was too arrogant for
you, and you'd correct that condition. I realized I was dealing with a loony
at that point and told you that I would no longer give polite replies to someone
that attacked me on every occasion.
One can only turn the cheek so many times.
>You forging e-mail and posts using my name, on the other hand, is a
>different matter altogether.
Shall we download the originals, then? I haven't changed a single word!
>And as for demonstrating a "twisted mentality", you're the one who enjoys
>the imagery of a BABY performing oral sex on a YOUNG BOY.
No, David, I don't. I know the concept is very hard for you to understand, but
the joke was that Bart was caught.
Now, quit lying.
Doc
David Blazina
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68hr5e$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Oh, it was a joke about Bart getting caught, huh? Why not Bart getting
caught cheating at checkers? or cutting school? Why did you portray Bart,
a *prepubescent boy*, getting caught receiving *oral sex* from a *baby*?
I'll tell you why: because you indulge in child pornography.
I'll leave you with this:
You cannot deny the contents of your site, and you have provided me with
all I need to defend my position. Contrary to your attempts at
rationalization, it has become plain for everyone to see what you are. I
just pray that you haven't acted out your sick fantasies.
Doc Quack
lhirsch <lhi...@ibm.net> wrote:
>David Blazina wrote:
>>
>> It is really a shame when people consider child pornography a joke.
>
>It is really a shame when people consdier a joke to be child
>pornography.
>
>Lance
I agree.
I'd like to thank all of those that are giving me support by e-mail. I've
replied by e-mail, but one of the AOL e-mails was bounced back to me as an bad
address, and since it was a private conversation, I wouldn't feel right in
putting your name here. The name started with an S and had a number in it.
Doc
Doc Quack
"David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
>> But you spin lies as easily as a spider. Any normal person is going to
>realize
>> the venom in your lies and attacks.
>
>No Doc, any normal person person will realize you have your drawings of a
>BABY performing oral sex on a YOUNG BOY on your site, and realize how
>diseased you are.
It must not be too bad, if you can go on and on about it, describing it on a
public board, which is something I would only do in a X rated area.
Doc
Doc Quack
"David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
I don't see any need to deny my web site. I'm not ashamed of what I've done,
and I believe it to be rough adult humor. Anyone that has had the intestinal
fortitude to wade through all of your petty attempts at character assassination
realizes just how obsessed you are with me. This obsession is evidence of a
mental illness on your part. You admit that you attacked me prior to knowledge
of my site, and you've been rather desperately trying to hang an insulting tag
on me since you found my site.
I'll bet that it disturbs you that nobody has joined your witch hunt.
I feel sorry for you, having this problem. At the same time, I cannot allow you
to continue lying about me. As I told you, I will not ignore your vicious
attacks any longer.
Doc
AddickSE7
Tell Fox about it. They'll get rid of it.
Paul Jeczalik
>
I suggested that you ignore his images if you didn't like them, and I
made the reason for such an approach very clear in my previous post.
However, since you chose to conveniently ignore everything in my article
other than the few snippets you could easily denounce when left on their
own, I will make my point once again.
> > Get a life.
>
> Try to rid the internet of child porn peddlers and people tell you to
> get a life. How sad.
Every attempt, whether through legislation or mobs of idealist dogooders
(such as those found at pedowatch), to cleanse the internet of porno has
failed miserably. Regardless of your opinion, this type of material is
here to stay. I don't look highly upon child pornography, and would be
very pleased to see it vanish entirely. However, I also know that if I
spent my time fighting it, the only result would be a colossal waste of
energy. All hubbub like this does is force pedophiles to trade their
material in dark alleys. It does not stop them. As I said last time,
if you were to have Doc Quack's web site shut down, that wouldn't stop
anyone wishing to obtain this material from any of the other hundred or
so sites that are also dealing in it.
To make matters worse, your clamouring has pointed every curious child
and adolescent--the very people who you wish to "protect"--straight to
Doc Quack's web site. I just downloaded 90 messages from this group,
and 25% of them are a direct result of your complaining. Whereas you
could have simply taken it upon yourself to either shield your family
from the material, or if you were really stupid and thought you could
save the world, report it to pedowatch, instead you chose to bring it
to the attention of thousands of people, many of them children. While
you may not be a pedophile, you are now just as bad, as you've just
advertised his site to the masses and made it possible for that many
more individuals to find and be exposed to the very material you hate.
We're talking about dirty cartoons this guy gets his grins from drawing.
Nobody but extreemists like yourself gives a damn. They are neither
real human children nor drawings of human children. They are fictional
cartoons that do not exist other than as black lines and yellow paint.
Paul Jeczalik
What we consider a joke is someone going ballistic over dirty cartoons.
Doc Quack
Paul Jeczalik <pj...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>I suggested that you ignore his images if you didn't like them, and I
>made the reason for such an approach very clear in my previous post.
>However, since you chose to conveniently ignore everything in my article
>other than the few snippets you could easily denounce when left on their
>own, I will make my point once again.
Paul, it doesn't matter how many times you say it, David is going to ignore you
because it isn't the drawings he really objects to, it's me. He tried to
insult me long before he knew of my drawings. Many have noted his antagonistic
attitude. Once he found out about my drawings, he couldn't wait to mount his
attack. If he had any real feeling about my drawings being really
objectionable, he wouldn't have described the three or so in such negative
connotation here in ATS.
>
>> > Get a life.
>>
>> Try to rid the internet of child porn peddlers and people tell you to
>> get a life. How sad.
>
>Every attempt, whether through legislation or mobs of idealist dogooders
>(such as those found at pedowatch), to cleanse the internet of porno has
>failed miserably. Regardless of your opinion, this type of material is
>here to stay. I don't look highly upon child pornography, and would be
>very pleased to see it vanish entirely. However, I also know that if I
>spent my time fighting it, the only result would be a colossal waste of
>energy. All hubbub like this does is force pedophiles to trade their
>material in dark alleys. It does not stop them. As I said last time,
>if you were to have Doc Quack's web site shut down, that wouldn't stop
>anyone wishing to obtain this material from any of the other hundred or
>so sites that are also dealing in it.
Al of the x rated drawings there have been posted in the x-rated ng's years
ago. While some have not been thrilled by the jokes, nobody has ever accused me
of being a monster for drawing them before.
>
>To make matters worse, your clamouring has pointed every curious child
>and adolescent--the very people who you wish to "protect"--straight to
>Doc Quack's web site. I just downloaded 90 messages from this group,
>and 25% of them are a direct result of your complaining. Whereas you
>could have simply taken it upon yourself to either shield your family
>from the material, or if you were really stupid and thought you could
>save the world, report it to pedowatch, instead you chose to bring it
>to the attention of thousands of people, many of them children. While
>you may not be a pedophile, you are now just as bad, as you've just
>advertised his site to the masses and made it possible for that many
>more individuals to find and be exposed to the very material you hate.
I've tried to keep the web site a place for those that enjoy my drawings, be
they jokes, or erotic drawings of adults. This has worked quite well, but now
with David screaming, I've have more visitors overnight than in the past two
years. David thought he could embarrass me by advertising it. Since it's not
a pedo site, I will keep it up.
Thurston
> "David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> ? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote in
[snip]
> > This is dreadfully. Do you know how these toon porn pictues are created?
> > Young innocent toons are kidnapped off the streats of springfield, acme
> > acers and other such places. Then thay are forced to pose naked for
> > hours on end while perverts create these immages
> > What is done to these poor toons is inhuman!
> It is really a shame when people consider child pornography a joke.
>>>>
No, it's a shame that people such as yourself are unable or unwilling to tell
the difference between line drawings of imaginary people and photographs
of real-life individuals.
I can see the bumper stickers now: "Toon Porno is NO Joke!" "End Violence
to Coyotes!" "R. Crumb Sodomizes Babies!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlleyAllen
>I can see the bumper stickers now: "Toon Porno is NO Joke!" "End Violence
>to Coyotes!" "R. Crumb Sodomizes Babies!"
>
>
Kind of brings a new meaning to the term "finger painting with colors." C'mon
folks, let's end this thread, ok?
Kevin Danzig
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68hn0k$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> "David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Oh no, a child having sex with each other and with animals isn't kiddie
> >porn, of course not.
> >
> Most people are smart enough to know that a certain tiger is totally the
> imagination of a boy, and the concept is about his imagination. Sorry
that
> you're too dense to understand that.
So, "Mr. Quack", it wasn't you who wanted to see an animal having sex with
a little girl, it was Calvin from the comic strip. Oooookaaaay....you just
merely drew it because he told you to. But your not responsible for the
drawing, after all, it was Calvin from the comic strip's idea.
Doc Quack
"Kevin Danzig" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The handle's 'Doc Quack'. Mr. Quack doesn't convey the angst and whimsey I
prefer.
And yes, the idea was all mine! Heck, I signed the thing, didn't I? If you
don't like it, don't seek it out. I'm not pushing it.
You're making a mistake about 'wanting to see an animal having sex with a little
girl..' though. They might be playing leap-frog. ;-) A person sees what they
want to see.
Doc
Doc Quack
"Thomas J. Ciko" <tc...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Doc Quack wrote:
>> I'd like to thank all of those that are giving me support by e-mail. I've
>> replied by e-mail
>
>Hey, I'm with you all the way. The supreme court hung the
>"communications decency act" by its balls.
>
>>Sorry to disappoint you, David, but my lusts are for Lisa when she hits 18.
>>That's obvious to any normal person.
>
>He he he yeah, Lisa's cute.
>
>And it's not exactly like you don't warn the people before they enter..
>jeez..
>
>Tom Ciko
Thanks, Tom. Nice to hear from a rational person. Most of the people that
enjoy the stuff I do, e-mail me, and I try to respond.
Doc
Kevin Danzig
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68la5j$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Kevin Danzig" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're making a mistake about 'wanting to see an animal having sex with a
little
> girl..' though. They might be playing leap-frog. ;-) A person sees
what they
> want to see.
Your rationalization is typical. I'll bet you thought John Wayne Gacy was
just another clown.
Kevin Danzig
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68lah7$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Apparently, pedophiles stick together. You mentioned in a post to the
person who originally complained that your picture of Lisa is of when she
is eighteen. Try drawing a picture of a neighbor's 8 year-old daughter
with developed breasts, show it to them and say "this is what I imagine
your daughter looking like when she is 18!" See how quickly the cops are
at you door.
And spare me the "it's only a cartoon" crap, if you think about children in
this way, it isn't limited to cartoon characters.
There are organizations as well as law-enforcement groups that keep records
of child pornographers and pedophiles on the internet. You're "name" and,
more importantly, site address has been forwarded to several of them.
Doc Quack
"Kevin Danzig" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><68lah7$o...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>> "Thomas J. Ciko" <tc...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> >He he he yeah, Lisa's cute.
>> >
>> >And it's not exactly like you don't warn the people before they enter..
>> >jeez..
>> >
>> >Tom Ciko
>>
>> Thanks, Tom. Nice to hear from a rational person. Most of the people
>that
>> enjoy the stuff I do, e-mail me, and I try to respond.
>>
>> Doc
>
>Apparently, pedophiles stick together. You mentioned in a post to the
>person who originally complained that your picture of Lisa is of when she
>is eighteen. Try drawing a picture of a neighbor's 8 year-old daughter
>with developed breasts, show it to them and say "this is what I imagine
>your daughter looking like when she is 18!" See how quickly the cops are
>at you door.
>
Hmmm, interesting. Now a pedophile is someone that finds 18 year old women
sexually attractive. How do couples get married in that strange universe you
live in? Are you certain that by these rules, you're not a pedophile?
Your analogy is very flawed. I suspect that should I draw a nude picture of a
man's wife, he would be upset, unless I had her permission.
>And spare me the "it's only a cartoon" crap, if you think about children in
>this way, it isn't limited to cartoon characters.
Oooo, threaten me with the 'Thought Police"? "We know what you're thinking!"
You deserve only contempt for this threat, especially since you have no idea
what I think.
>
>There are organizations as well as law-enforcement groups that keep records
>of child pornographers and pedophiles on the internet. You're "name" and,
>more importantly, site address has been forwarded to several of them.
>
They'll likely put you down as someone that is ridiculous, then. They have far
too much real business to attend to than to go off on a witch hunt due to the
fact that you don't like what I draw. The drawings I've done have been on the
web for over three years now. They've been seen by everyone, and incorporated
into hundreds of web sites around the world.
In the meantime, I welcome any adult to view the site, and decide for
themselves. The three toons (out of 40 or so) we're discussing here are still
there.
Doc
Doc
Doc Quack
"Kevin Danzig" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><68la5j$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>> "Kevin Danzig" <kevin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You're making a mistake about 'wanting to see an animal having sex with a
>little
>> girl..' though. They might be playing leap-frog. ;-) A person sees
>what they
>> want to see.
>
>Your rationalization is typical. I'll bet you thought John Wayne Gacy was
>just another clown.
Yes, just another crazy killer clown with a rather repulsive diet.
Doc
Demon Douglas
Pis off
Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<68hnbk$f...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> "David Blazina" <Nash...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Jeczalik <pj...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in article
> >>
> >> If the material offends you, don't look at it.
> >
> >it's sad you dismiss kiddie porn like this.
> >
> >> Or
> >> you might consider fighting the -real- child pornography that exists
on
> >> the internet,
> >
> >I do.
> >
> >> Get a life.
> >
> >Try to rid the internet of child porn peddlers and people tell you to
get a
> >life. How sad.
>
> When someone tells a stalker to get a life, they lie about their victim.
How
> pathetic.
>
> Doc
>
>
Andrew Gill
Kevin Danzig wrote in message <68ljbf$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>And spare me the "it's only a cartoon" crap, if you think about children in
>this way, it isn't limited to cartoon characters.
Ah, so if I were to play Quake, I would be a violent and maladjusted
individual? Or watch A Clockwork Orange or Lolita? If you can hit your dog
with a newspaper, why not your wife?
In short, your assertion has flaws at the basic level, thus precluding your
ability to use this argument well.
I am willing to defend Doc Quack, as he is not just a "child pornographer
and pedophile", but rather, an intelligent individual with much to say
concerning such topics as constitutional rights, newsgrouping, image
captures, general politics, &c.
And I'm willing to ignore ~40 sick images for more than 400 intelligent
posts. It's too bad that some people cannot.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
But (Tom&Jerry, Archie Bunker, Rolling Stones[e.g. Altamont]) did it!
JEdraw
This is absolutely the most messages per day I've seen on any thread since I
joined! And It has nothing relevant to do with The Simpsons!
>>>>>>>>>>
Jordan Eisenberg -- -- JEd...@aol.com
From the SNPP Archive:
Homer: [taking notes] Uh huh. Uh huh. Okay. Um, can you repeat the part
of the stuff where you said all about the... things. Uh... the
things?
Omar
> >It is really a shame when people consdier a joke to be child
> >pornography.
> >
> >Lance
Actually, it's really a shame when consider child pornography to be a
joke.
--
Omar Younis om...@intellipage.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Omar's Simpsons Site: http://intellipage.com/simpsons/
IntelliPage: http://intellipage.com/
Kevin Danzig
Andrew Gill <fruadman_tru...@juno.com> wrote in article
<68lpl4$28...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
> Kevin Danzig wrote in message <68ljbf$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >And spare me the "it's only a cartoon" crap, if you think about children
in
> >this way, it isn't limited to cartoon characters.
>
> Ah, so if I were to play Quake, I would be a violent and maladjusted
> individual? Or watch A Clockwork Orange or Lolita? If you can hit your
dog
> with a newspaper, why not your wife?
get back to me when you learn the difference between your examples and
mine.
> In short, your assertion has flaws at the basic level, thus precluding
your
> ability to use this argument well.
that's funny, I was just about to say the same thing about you.
> I am willing to defend Doc Quack, as he is not just a "child pornographer
> and pedophile", but rather, an intelligent individual with much to say
> concerning such topics as constitutional rights, newsgrouping, image
> captures, general politics, &c.
by saying he is "not just a child pornographer....." you admit that he is.
psu., is that Penn State? oh well, what do you expect from a state
school...did you go shopping with Curtis Enis?
Thank you for your support Mr. Gill.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote in
>article <883700015.609571@cabal>...
[...]
>> What is done to these poor toons is inhuman!
>It is really a shame when people consider child pornography a joke.
Before I tried to explane it useing humour and satire to put my point
accross (reber humour and satire? that is what the simposons is about).
This time I will say it useing plane english.
Child pornography is bad because creating it hurts children. And I would
not defend creating it. However Lisa Simpson is not real, creating porn
with her in it dosen't hurt her.
You view that toon porn is child porn IMHO trivisers the suffering these
children have go threw.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.
Support NoCeM http://www.cm.org/
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
In <68ljbf$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> "Kevin Danzig" <kevin...@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
>And spare me the "it's only a cartoon" crap, if you think about children in
>this way, it isn't limited to cartoon characters.
You have never herd the term toonaphilia? There is a number of peaple out
there who's sexulality is directed towards cartoon characters.
>There are organizations as well as law-enforcement groups that keep records
>of child pornographers and pedophiles on the internet. You're "name" and,
>more importantly, site address has been forwarded to several of them.
Most likely if Doc Quack so desireed he now could sue you if this caused
him a loss of income. Inaccuratly calling someone a pedifile is quite
likely to cost you alot of money.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>Doc Quack <XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
><68hr5e$n...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
[...]
>> No, David, I don't. I know the concept is very hard for you to
>> understand, but the joke was that Bart was caught.
>Oh, it was a joke about Bart getting caught, huh? Why not Bart getting
>caught cheating at checkers? or cutting school?
Because that wouldn't be funny. And caught cheating at checkers or
cutting school is difficalt to show in graphical fashion.
Thurston
> ? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
[snip]
> Before I tried to explane it useing humour and satire to put my point
> accross (reber humour and satire? that is what the simposons is about).
> This time I will say it useing plane english.
> Child pornography is bad because creating it hurts children. And I would
> not defend creating it. However Lisa Simpson is not real, creating porn
> with her in it dosen't hurt her.
> You view that toon porn is child porn IMHO trivisers the suffering these
> children have go threw.
>>>>
This englush used on airplanes?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mari N Schaal
Andrew Gill wrote:
>
> Ah, so if I were to play Quake, I would be a violent and maladjusted
> individual?
Yeah, most likely ;-)
> If you can hit your dog
> with a newspaper, why not your wife?
You shouldn't hit either, IMO...
Andrew Gill
Kevin Danzig wrote in message <68satv$r...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...>> Kevin Danzig wrote in message <68ljbf$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>> >
>> >And spare me the "it's only a cartoon" crap, if you think about children
>in
>> >this way, it isn't limited to cartoon characters.
>>
>dog
>> with a newspaper, why not your wife?
>
>mine.
What is the difference between your analogies and mine? A Clockwork Orange
is, AFAIK, one of the most violent movies ever, and it is IMO, MUCH more
offensive than Doc's site (I haven't heard much about Lolita, so I can't
speak for it--I suspect that there's no actual porn, though). No one was
injured in the creation of Doc's pictures, but I'm pretty sure that some
minor injuries occurred (hell, some even occurred in Titanic) in the making
of ACO. People got hurt; It was sadistic; &c, &c. This is NO different
from what you are implying about Doc (well, my examples are rooted in
reality). And mine are true. ACO was originally rated X. The material
therein "allows us to enjoy the beatings and rapes," according to Pauline
Kael, but in spite of this, it won 4 academy awards, and was directed by
Kubrick. You wouldn't call him sick, would you?
>> I am willing to defend Doc Quack, as he is not just a "child pornographer
>> and pedophile", but rather, an intelligent individual with much to say
>> concerning such topics as constitutional rights, newsgrouping, image
>> captures, general politics, &c.
>
>by saying he is "not just a child pornographer....." you admit that he is.
I was just quoting you. Note the quotation marks--those double apostrophes
around the words?
>psu., is that Penn State? oh well, what do you expect from a state
>school...did you go shopping with Curtis Enis?
Well, I don't go to PSU, I just use their dialup. (Oh, and I do hope that
JoPa suffers the same thing that befell Coach Krzyzewski a couple of years
ago)
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
This will be my final post on the matter here in ats. DQ has opted against
replies, believing you to be a troll. I don't see that, but suspect that
it's probably true.
Andrew Gill
Mari N Schaal wrote in message <34B31C...@earthlink.net>...
>Andrew Gill wrote:
>> If you can hit your dog
>> with a newspaper, why not your wife?
>
True, but I was speaking in what is accepted in our society WRT the dog. I
would be agaist either, too, but I wouldn't be as angered by hitting the
dog.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
The question is--would you call the police? I sure hope that I would.
Thurston
> wavie <wa...@sprintmail.com> writes:
> Andrew Gill wrote:
[snip]
> > And I'm willing to ignore ~40 sick images for more than 400 intelligent
> > posts. It's too bad that some people cannot.
> I cannot because he posted his website address soliciting visitors in
> this newsgroup where tons of kids visit daily. Think of all the 12-year
> olds, just got there pc for Christmas and they follow the link. I must
> say, Doc's page isn't very clear on what's clean and what's not.
> Furthermore, there isn't anything keeping those kids from entering
> either "door" either. Because this is a newgroup read by a whole lot of
> kids, I don't think Doc was very prudent/responsible in posting his link
> to the group.
>>>>
If it weren't for sick preeverts and the internet...kids would never, ever
discover s-e-x or other such disgusting deviations....now would they?
"Think of the CHILDREN!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solon Boomer-Jenks
wavie wrote:
> Andrew Gill wrote:
> >
> > Kevin Danzig wrote in message <68ljbf$a...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >
> > >And spare me the "it's only a cartoon" crap, if you think about children in
> > >this way, it isn't limited to cartoon characters.
> >
> > Ah, so if I were to play Quake, I would be a violent and maladjusted
> > individual? Or watch A Clockwork Orange or Lolita? If you can hit your dog
> > with a newspaper, why not your wife?
> >
> > In short, your assertion has flaws at the basic level, thus precluding your
> > ability to use this argument well.
> >
> > I am willing to defend Doc Quack, as he is not just a "child pornographer
> > and pedophile", but rather, an intelligent individual with much to say
> > concerning such topics as constitutional rights, newsgrouping, image
> > captures, general politics, &c.
> >
> > And I'm willing to ignore ~40 sick images for more than 400 intelligent
> > posts. It's too bad that some people cannot.
>
> I cannot because he posted his website address soliciting visitors in
> this newsgroup where tons of kids visit daily. Think of all the 12-year
> olds, just got there pc for Christmas and they follow the link.
Oh no, those twelve-year-olds just can not handle seeing naked cartoon
characters. They've been scarred for life!
> I must
> say, Doc's page isn't very clear on what's clean and what's not.
> Furthermore, there isn't anything keeping those kids from entering
> either "door" either. Because this is a newgroup read by a whole lot of
> kids, I don't think Doc was very prudent/responsible in posting his link
> to the group.
>
> Carol
Well, if the children aren't responsible enough to stay out of places they
shouldn't be, then they're parents shouldn't have got PC's for them, but rather
guards to walk around with them, to move them away from anything offensive that
they might see, and to kick the crap out of the kid at school with the dirty
magazine.
Solon
David Blazina
Andrew Gill wrote in message <68uc3k$f...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>...
>Well, I don't go to PSU, I just use their dialup. (Oh, and I do hope that
>JoPa suffers the same thing that befell Coach Krzyzewski a couple of years
>ago)
Oh, come on, everyone loves JoPa! How can you say such a thing? The guy has
kind of gotten screwed on those undefeated seasons he's had w/out winning a
title. Hey, doesn't Krzyzewski's haircut make him look like a 4 year-old
returning from an unsuccessful trip to the barber? Yeesh, that's a baaad
haircut.
AlleyAllen
Just an independent sort of thought here, from someone who doesn't have kids
(and is darn proud of it too)....
Does it seem that this society is more tolerant of violence than we are of sex?
Just watch TV. I'm willing to bet (although I will admit I might be wrong)
that there are more murders and violent acts every night on ABC, NBC, CBS and
Fox than there are sexual acts (or sexual suggestions).
We're so scared to allow our kids intelligent exposure to sexual information,
but we'd willingly allow them to watch extremely violent shows and cartoons,
i.e. Bugs Bunny (a show of which I am a big fan).
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd much rather a child be EDUCATED
about sex than be exposed to unnecessary violence.
Phuc Yoo
This guy's got a helluva good point.
AlleyAllen <alley...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980110225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Geballter Schrei
Doc Quack, I'm completely by your side. I'm against any form of
censorship. It's just a question of freedom of expression...
Then, if someone wants to see that stuff or not is just his own
business (freedom of choice)...
Anyway, I'd like to see your work, but your address doesn't seem to
work anymore. What happened? Censorship from the server or else?
Please, let me know and if u can tell me what can I do to see your
drawings.
Thank you.
Geballter Schrei
<geballte...@yahoo.com>
"Destruction is not negative - you must destroy to build"
Einsturzende Neubauten
No Spam:
to reply by e-mail please remove XXX from the sender address.
Neal Block
OK. Interesting Request coming up. I was wondering if anybody on this
list (you would be the most likely candidates) has a video collection of
the Simpsons that has every episode in order. I know that this is a tall
request, but there's no harm in asking. I guess that would be around
20-30 video cassettes depending on recording speed. Let me know if you
have this.
neal
Andrew Gill
John Ogan wrote in message <34cd5...@news.cc.umr.edu>...
>
>My god.
>From the time Doc first flamed me to the times we e-mailed discussing
>methods of making our own Simpsons drawings, I considered him a worthy
>member and a major player in the a.t.s community. His presence will be
>missed.
I'd like to add my condolences. His intelligence and wit will surely be
missed here and elsewhere.
It was Mr. Quack who got me thinking about the irrelevance of real
names--all I ever knew was his screen name. I can't help but wonder...but
that's irrelevant. He will be missed, and I can only have faith that this
is fate, and that good will come out of it.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
This is, of course, assuming that this wasn't just a sick, sick troll.
Dlanok de Caresk
geballter...@yahoo.com (Geballter Schrei) wrote:
>Doc Quack, I'm completely by your side. I'm against any form of
>censorship. It's just a question of freedom of expression...
>Then, if someone wants to see that stuff or not is just his own
>business (freedom of choice)...
>Anyway, I'd like to see your work, but your address doesn't seem to
>work anymore. What happened? Censorship from the server or else?
>Please, let me know and if u can tell me what can I do to see your
>drawings.
>Thank you.
> Geballter Schrei
> <geballte...@yahoo.com>
Doc Quack passed away about the first of the month. His widow didn't
want to keep the expense of the service. A lot of us are goning to
miss him. We had a beach party wake to moun him.
People are posting his drawings on
alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.cartoons and
alt.binaries.pictures.cartoons
If you got some he didn't post, I'd like to get a copy from you.
Dlanok
John Ogan
Dlanok de Caresk <dlan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Doc Quack passed away about the first of the month. His widow didn't
: want to keep the expense of the service. A lot of us are goning to
: miss him. We had a beach party wake to moun him.
: People are posting his drawings on
: alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.cartoons and
: alt.binaries.pictures.cartoons
: If you got some he didn't post, I'd like to get a copy from you.
: Dlanok
My god.
From the time Doc first flamed me to the times we e-mailed discussing
methods of making our own Simpsons drawings, I considered him a worthy
member and a major player in the a.t.s community. His presence will be
missed.
John Ogan
Ordained SubGenius Minister since 1994.
http://www.missouri.edu/~c725854
S1.2 LIS+++* HOM+++ APU++# GKW+ CBG+# ABE++
f++ n+ Ipso $+ M20 9F01,9F15,2F06,3F03,4F11,5F05,7F19
Roycer
>Doc Quack passed away about the first of the month.
---
S1.2 DOC+++ > f+++ n+ s $++++ M41
Henry Ford
John Ogan wrote in message <34cd5...@news.cc.umr.edu>...
>Dlanok de Caresk <dlan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>: Doc Quack passed away about the first of the month. His widow didn't
>: want to keep the expense of the service. A lot of us are goning to
>: miss him. We had a beach party wake to moun him.
>: People are posting his drawings on
>: alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.cartoons and
>: alt.binaries.pictures.cartoons
>: If you got some he didn't post, I'd like to get a copy from you.
>: Dlanok
>
>My god.
>From the time Doc first flamed me to the times we e-mailed discussing
>methods of making our own Simpsons drawings, I considered him a worthy
>member and a major player in the a.t.s community. His presence will be
>missed.
If this is even true, I'm glad. Doc Quack deserved to die. The only reason
I believe in heaven is so there's a hell for people like him.
Henry Ford
Scott
Dlanok de Caresk wrote:
> Doc Quack passed away about the first of the month. His widow didn't
> want to keep the expense of the service. A lot of us are goning to
> miss him. We had a beach party wake to moun him.
Is this on the level? Geez, I hadn't seen any more posts from him and I
was wondering what happened to the guy. We had been posting back and
forth about ideas for a new Krusty episode when he abruptly stopped. I
guess I now know the reason why. He had some really good thoughts, too.
It was my first encounter with him (and, it would appear, the last).
Scott
Henry Ford
Paul Buxton wrote in message ...
>In article <6alr0n$h...@examiner.concentric.net>, Henry Ford
><hf...@ibm.net> writes
>>
>>If this is even true, I'm glad. Doc Quack deserved to die. The only
reason
>>I believe in heaven is so there's a hell for people like him.
>>
>>Henry Ford
>>
>Not true Henry, Hell isn't for people like Doc Quack (whatever you mean
>by that?), it is for people like yourself who would stoop so low as to
>attack someone who can no longer defend himself. If you truly believe in
>God, which I doubt considering your callous approach, you should try
>asking forgiveness for your own sins.
>
>I will personally miss the Doc, may he rest in peace.
The sooner that piece of trash is rotting in the earth, the better. And as
for resting in peace, that bitch will know eternal torment. He's gonna find
out that darkness is the power of light the hard way.
Henry Ford
Henry Ford
John Ogan wrote in message <34ce8...@news.cc.umr.edu>...
>Thus spoke Henry Ford <hf...@ibm.net>:
>: If this is even true, I'm glad. Doc Quack deserved to die. The only
reason
>: I believe in heaven is so there's a hell for people like him.
>
>What'd Doc do to leave you so pissed? If this is about the whole "child
>porn" thing, you're out of your gourd.
Don't know what's up with that, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn he was
involved in something like that. They guy was pure filth, and if I had
*anything* at all to do with him meeting his grave, I'm pleased.
Henry Ford
Paul Buxton
>I believe in heaven is so there's a hell for people like him.
>
>
Not true Henry, Hell isn't for people like Doc Quack (whatever you mean
by that?), it is for people like yourself who would stoop so low as to
attack someone who can no longer defend himself. If you truly believe in
God, which I doubt considering your callous approach, you should try
asking forgiveness for your own sins.
I will personally miss the Doc, may he rest in peace.
--
Paul Buxton
"No you can't play with it, you won't enjoy it on as many levels as I do."-Frink
Paul Buxton
In article <6am98o$3...@examiner.concentric.net>, Henry Ford
<hf...@ibm.net> writes
>
>Paul Buxton wrote in message ...
>>>
>>Not true Henry, Hell isn't for people like Doc Quack (whatever you mean
>>by that?), it is for people like yourself who would stoop so low as to
>>attack someone who can no longer defend himself. If you truly believe in
>>God, which I doubt considering your callous approach, you should try
>>asking forgiveness for your own sins.
>>
>>I will personally miss the Doc, may he rest in peace.
>
>
How I judge people on this NG is by the content of their reasoned
argument and insight into the TV show 'The Simpsons'. Doc Quack was at
least usually on topic and his insight was frequently an inspiration.
Henry, you currently rate somewhere close to Satmar, another person who
uses this forum to spread his hatred. At the end of the day Henry,
anything you say here and now, the Doc is unaffected by, pity you didn't
have the balls to make your feelings known to him when he was still
alive. If you didn't like the Doc for whatever reason (and you still
haven't made your motives clear) then this forum probably isn't the
place to post your views if you want to make friends here. If you don't
want to make friends here then the only other reason you could have to
make this post is because you're a troll, if this is what you had in
mind when you made the original post then that changes my perspective of
you. If the idea was just to stir up a hornets nest, then minus several
million for marks in good taste, you must be a very sick individual. If
however you have a valid reason for disliking the Doc, then you should
have told him when he was still alive, telling us won't make any
difference. It's a blessing that Doc's widow has cancelled the service,
I would hate to think that she may have read your original post. You can
no longer hurt the Doc, but you can still hurt the people who cared for
him by referring to him in this way, surely these people do not deserve
this from you.
<FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE, THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS
INTENDED AS IRONY>
By the way Henry, be sure to make arrangements to inform us of your
death (when you pass away) so that anyone who has a grudge can post the
alternative obituary, you know, the one where we all slag you off. We'll
make sure your widow gets a copy.
Henry Ford
Paul Buxton wrote in message ...
>How I judge people on this NG is by the content of their reasoned
>argument and insight into the TV show 'The Simpsons'. Doc Quack was at
>least usually on topic and his insight was frequently an inspiration.
>Henry, you currently rate somewhere close to Satmar, another person who
>uses this forum to spread his hatred.
He just yanking your collective chain, I'm serious.
At the end of the day Henry,
>anything you say here and now, the Doc is unaffected by, pity you didn't
>have the balls to make your feelings known to him when he was still
>alive.
Oh, I did. You just don't know that.
>have told him when he was still alive, telling us won't make any
>difference.
I wouldn't have said anything if it weren't for the laugable post about his
death.
>It's a blessing that Doc's widow has cancelled the service,
>I would hate to think that she may have read your original post.
She knows what a piece of filth he is. Who do you think beat the hell out
of her and their kids all those years? It wasn't the damn milkman.
><FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE, THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS
>INTENDED AS IRONY>
>
>By the way Henry, be sure to make arrangements to inform us of your
>death (when you pass away) so that anyone who has a grudge can post the
>alternative obituary, you know, the one where we all slag you off. We'll
>make sure your widow gets a copy.
I don't care if you die, and I wouldn't expect you to care if I died either.
Henry Ford
-- Happy day! happy day! Doc Quack is dead! --
Dale G. Abersold
"Henry Ford" <hf...@ibm.net> writes:
> If this is even true, I'm glad. Doc Quack deserved to die. The only reason
> I believe in heaven is so there's a hell for people like him.
>
> Henry Ford
You have all the compassion and humanity as your namesake. *Plonk*
_____________________________________________________________
| Dale G. Abersold-...@cc.usu.edu |
| S1.2 LIS+++! MIL++@ CBG* f++ n++ $+++ 7F19 M28 |
| Dale's New and Constantly Incomplete Home Page |
| http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/7309 |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gill
Henry Ford wrote in message <6alr0n$h...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>
>If this is even true, I'm glad. Doc Quack deserved to die. The only
reason
>I believe in heaven is so there's a hell for people like him.
You have proven yourself to be a very UNChristian person. I would not wish
Hell even on Adolf Hitler. No person deserves that, no matter how sick,
evil, &c s/he is. (Not that any of this applied to Doc, mind you.)
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
Even trolls ought to have a code of conduct...
Solon Boomer-Jenks
Andrew Gill wrote:
> John Ogan wrote in message <34cd5...@news.cc.umr.edu>...
> >
> >My god.
> >From the time Doc first flamed me to the times we e-mailed discussing
> >methods of making our own Simpsons drawings, I considered him a worthy
> >member and a major player in the a.t.s community. His presence will be
> >missed.
>
> I'd like to add my condolences. His intelligence and wit will surely be
> missed here and elsewhere.
>
I must agree. He was always there to let me know when I did something stupid,
to correct me. He had a way of being friendly about it, like no one else I
have met. He was also there to answer questions for me about newsgroups
(which I, like most people, didn't understand them at all when I first started
using them).
> It was Mr. Quack who got me thinking about the irrelevance of real
> names--all I ever knew was his screen name. I can't help but wonder...but
> that's irrelevant. He will be missed, and I can only have faith that this
> is fate, and that good will come out of it.
>
Well, his first name was Aaron, and he did not prefer Mr. Quack, as it "did
not convey the angst and whimsey" he preferred.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
> ----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
> The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
> -----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
>
> This is, of course, assuming that this wasn't just a sick, sick troll.
And it really better not be, I don't believe it is, as his Simpsons site is
gone. I was going to add Doc's last post, which appears to have been on
January 4th, but, unfortunately, it was one about his web site, and I don't
think he should be remembered for that. Instead, I will add this, which he
posted on New Years Day, and is what I would rather remember him for:
---------------------
Here's to all of you Simpson fans, be you super critic or super fan, and all
of
those in between!
I hope your coming year brings prosperity, health, happiness, and many more
eps
of the Simpsons! Live long and prosper!
Doc Quack
------------------------
Solon
Andrew Gill
Solon Boomer-Jenks (in loco Doc Quack) wrote in message
<34D104F8...@lasal.net>...
>
>---------------------
>Here's to all of you Simpson fans, be you super critic or super fan, and
all
>of
>those in between!
>
>I hope your coming year brings prosperity, health, happiness, and many more
>eps
>of the Simpsons! Live long and prosper!
>
>Doc Quack
>------------------------
Indeed a truly appropriate quote. Doc Quack--always a kind soul, wishing us
well. I suspect that he's doing that right now--from wherever he is.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
So long, Dr. A Quack, and thanks for all the posts.
Paul Buxton
In article <6aocm4$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, Henry Ford
<hf...@ibm.net> writes
>
>I don't care if you die, and I wouldn't expect you to care if I died either.
>
won't care when you die either, neither will I demean your reputation by
spreading slander.
--
Paul Buxton
pa...@kampkrusty.demon.co.uk
"No you can't play with it, you won't enjoy it on as many levels as I do"-Frink
Benjamin Robinson
In "Re: WARNING: Simpson's page contains child porn," Dlanok de Caresk
wrote:
>Doc Quack passed away about the first of the month.
Damn. I meant to tell him that I liked one of his drawings -- a portrait of
Marge wearing a Parisian can-can dress -- but my intentions got lost in the
shuffle. Now, it's too late. Damn.
>A lot of us are goning to miss him.
I did not meet Dr. Quack personally, but I will definitely miss his posts.
Insightful and fun to read, (and at times cantankerous) whenever I saw "Doc
Quack" in the author field, I knew the associated post would be worth my
time reading.
As far as I know, this is the first time someone left a.t.s. because they
passed on. How sad that it had to happen. Incidentally, did Doc Quack have
a given name? Next time I'm in the library, I might look up his obit.
Damn. This place is poorer for his loss.
--
Benjamin Robinson bj...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
This message may or may not contain sarcastic content; your burden to decide
Your spam has become tiresome. Add 1 to username to reply by e-mail
"He had a lot to say. He had a lot of nothing to say." - Tool
Henry Ford
Paul Buxton wrote in message ...
>In article <6aocm4$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, Henry Ford
><hf...@ibm.net> writes
>>
>>I don't care if you die, and I wouldn't expect you to care if I died
either.
>>
>You will die Henry, it's an inevitability which we all must face. I
>won't care when you die either, neither will I demean your reputation by
>spreading slander.
You don't know what the truth is twinkletoes, so your use of the word
slander in reference to what I said about Doc is ludicrous. Try again when
you know what you're talking about.
This thread is over.
Henry Ford
Paul Buxton
In article <6atkq3$8...@examiner.concentric.net>, Henry Ford
<hf...@ibm.net> writes
>
>You don't know what the truth is twinkletoes, so your use of the word
>slander in reference to what I said about Doc is ludicrous. Try again when
>you know what you're talking about.
>
>This thread is over.
>
Just for the record, I don't believe a word you've posted. I won't be
replying to any more of these tittle tattle posts I have better things
to do. Read the other posts in this thread and realise how much Doc has
influenced people and how much respect he has.
JEdraw
Kill this thread.
__ __ ______ __ __
I \ I I I ___ I I I __I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I /
I I\ \_I I I I__/ I \ \/ I I __
I_I \__/ \ ____/ \____/ I__\
>>>>>>>>>>
Jordan Eisenberg -- JEd...@aol.com
By the way, I'm aware of the irony
of posting to this thread in order to
decry it, so don't bother pointing it out!
From the SNPP Archives:
Ned: Do I hear the sound of butting in? It's gotta be little Lisa
Simpson! Springfield's answer to a question NO ONE ASKED!
-- "Hurricane Neddy"
Micah James Furuyama
Henry Ford (hf...@ibm.net) wrote:
: You don't know what the truth is twinkletoes, so your use of the word
: slander in reference to what I said about Doc is ludicrous. Try again when
: you know what you're talking about.
: This thread is over.
: Henry Ford
Colonel Klink?