Re: The wandering pedophile can't find a home...I wonder why?? :-)
ªºªandcarole(R)(tm)
The wandering pedophile
Jack McClellan has been convicted of no crime, but he's become a
pariah and an outcast, unwelcome in the Northwest. He loves to blog
about his fantasies of little girls, but in reality he is molesting
all of us.
By Knute Berger
Creepy pedophile blogger Jack McClellan is back in the news. The
former Washington resident gained fame in Los Angeles earlier this
year for a Web site that documented his attraction to and his public
stalking of young girls. Not that he ever touches them, he claims.
McClellan just likes to watch -- and advises other pedophiles where
the
good viewing is. After being run out of Washington and L.A., he
showed
up in Portland, where reports are that he has been hounded out of
town
by Portland transit police:
Jack McClellan, the pedophile blogger who moved from Southern
California to Portland this summer, says he won't be spending the
winter in rainy Oregon.
McClellan said the treatment he received last week from Portland's
transit police forced him to return to the Los Angeles area. ...
In choosing to move to Portland, he cited its reputation as a "haven
for offbeat people." But in a cell phone interview Monday with The
Oregonian, McClellan said he's done with the city.
Apparently, Tri-Met security found McClellan was violating transit
policy by riding all day. He said he was just trying to stay warm;
the
cops remembered that McClellan had said transit is a good place to
look for girls. They also said he'd admitted on his Web site to drug
use (taking magic mushrooms), so they banned him from the system for
60 days.
Some Portland civil libertarians are concerned with his treatment,
but
Tri-Met says if he was unhappy, he could have appealed their
decision.
They also note they'd received complaints about him from concerned
citizens who have seen him riding the system.
One bizarre aspect to the McClellan case: He's a pedophile who wants
to be caught. The New York Times in an article last July referred to
his "exhibitionistic blogging." He's never been convicted of a sex
crime. The molesting he does is all in his head.
When I was editor of Seattle Weekly, McClellan and I crossed paths,
sort of. He wrote a series of anonymous letters to the paper's
Dategirl sex columnist, and she has written about their creepy
exchanges. McClellan used to run a Web site about Northwest
prostitutes, but his interests turned to "the younger kind." Under
the
guise of seeking advice, he mostly seemed to be enjoying inhabiting
the pedophile archetype. As Dategirl wrote last summer:
No doubt McClellan is one sick bastard, but I wonder if this is just
a
twisted bid for attention and/or help. Note that he hasn't been
accused of molesting any children, just of staring, photographing,
and
blogging about them. His photo has been so widely published that
pretty much any parent with a television set has it memorized by now.
Ironically, it was a column I wrote about sex, torture, and using
technology to incriminate oneself that motivated McClellan to write
Seattle Weekly under his own name in 2004. I had no idea who he was.
The piece focused on the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and
good
people (like all-American GIs) who do evil things. I tied that
behavior to the Neil Goldschmidt sex scandal. Goldschmidt, the
popular
former Democratic governor of Oregon and onetime Portland mayor, had
been for decades covering up the fact that he'd had a sexual
relationship with his family's babysitter, starting when she was 14.
The public exposure of that and the story of its aftermath and the
devastation in the victim's life subsequently won Williamette Week a
Pulitzer Prize. I criticized Goldschmidt's characterization of that
relationship as an "affair" when it really was a rape -- statutory
rape.
McClellan took exception to my characterization. In his letter to the
editor, he said that the age of consent in Canada is 14:
Anyone who is old enough to reproduce is old enough to accept some
responsibility for whom they have sex with.
In other words, if a girl is fertile, even at age 9, she's fair game.
Consent or power differentials don't come into play, it's simply a
matter of biology.
The theme of my original column -- especially as it related to Abu
Ghraib -- was the role of personal technology in abuse cases. Why was
it that these soldiers seemed to take pleasure in documenting the
humiliation of their victims? Did the ability to take photographs
with
their cell phones contribute to an escalation of events? Here was my
take at the time:
We live in a culture that thrives on the ritual humiliation of
reality
TV. We're so obsessed with personal communication that our telephones
travel everywhere and record every precious thing we do -- "Look, Ma!
I'm sodomizing an Iraqi!" By obsessively self-promoting ourselves
into
celebrityhood--in real time via the Internet, camcorders, mobile
phones, and digital handheld personal assistants--we've become the
Information Age's compulsive media masturbators. We just can't keep
our paws off ourselves. In this environment, leaving incriminating
evidence is inevitable.
Unbeknownst to me then but clear to me now, that's just what Jack
McClellan is doing. He's created a kind of celebrityhood out of his
own self-documented pedophilic obsessions. It's a form of ritual
humiliation and self-flagellation. Instead of getting off on keeping
secrets, he's getting off by becoming a pariah and making us all sick
to our stomachs.
Dategirl got it half right: The "sick bastard" is not seeking help,
but he does crave attention. And we have to give it to him because of
the harm he could do if he one day crossed the line he enjoys
tiptoeing up to.
It's not just self-abuse. He's using technology to abuse us all.
Male Panties@hotmail.com MiNt Flavor she Male Condoms
Bwahaha! <<== the fave words the SISSY bobandcarole likes to see.
MiNt Flavor she Male Condoms
PEDO Steve Leyland (bobandcarole, etc.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==> da sissy panicked & revealed STOOGE nics:
missy J(ohn|ane) Doe & BUFFOON George Orwell
==================================++++++++++
Recipient /// duh DUMBEST Moron on Usenet 2007 Award \\\\
The sicko pedo that masturbates to BABY pics.
The Usenet Carnival Side Show freak.
The delusional fool.
bobandcarole
ªºªandcarole(R)(tm)
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:01:25 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
> <u...@example.net> typed furiously:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:44:04 -0800 (PST), "���andcarole(R)(tm)"
> ><bobandcarole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>McClellan took exception to my characterization. In his letter to the
> >>editor, he said that the age of consent in Canada is 14:
>
> >>Anyone who is old enough to reproduce is old enough to accept some
> >>responsibility for whom they have sex with.
>
> >>In other words, if a girl is fertile, even at age 9, she's fair game.
> >>Consent or power differentials don't come into play, it's simply a
> >>matter of biology.
>
>
> >Sounds *exactly like out David(I'm not a pedophile honest) Simpson
> >doesn't it?
>
> Cite required. You are a liar.
"In some parts of the world incest is considered to be a normal part
of the child's sex education. Any harm arises from a power imbalance
between the instigator and the other party. More harm is caused by
the
intervention of social workers and police than is caused by incest.
If
force or coercion is involved then it is rape and sexual abuse. That
is never all right. Paedophilia is feelings and those can't be wrong"
Incest "Daddy" David Simpson defends the indefensible again.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.incest/msg/d7b41a5f9c1e52e9?dmode=source
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:52:11 +1030, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:01:25 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>><us...@example.net> typed furiously:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:44:04 -0800 (PST), "的泳ndcarole(R)(tm)"
>>><bobandc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>McClellan took exception to my characterization. In his letter to the
>>>>editor, he said that the age of consent in Canada is 14:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Anyone who is old enough to reproduce is old enough to accept some
>>>>responsibility for whom they have sex with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In other words, if a girl is fertile, even at age 9, she's fair game.
>>>>Consent or power differentials don't come into play, it's simply a
>>>>matter of biology.
>>>
>>>Now what filthy pedophiles in these groups does he echo?
>>>
>>>Sounds *exactly like out David(I'm not a pedophile honest) Simpson
>>>doesn't it?
>>>
>>Cite required. You are a liar.
>
>Don't be ridiculous they are exactly the sentiments you preach..
>
>if they have reached puberty they are fair game ..your philosophy in a
>nutshell.
Failure to provide cite acknowledged.
In fact, hasn't David stated, on several occasions, "coercion is wrong
in any relationship" or words to that effect?
If you send email, I will reply to it here at asbl
(without showing your email addy)
unless you ask me not to.
bobandcarole
On Nov 17, 12:41 am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:36:51 -0800 (PST), bobandcarole
> <bobandcarole...@gmail.com> typed furiously:
>
> >On Nov 16, 9:45?am, "???andcarole(R)(tm)" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >> The wandering pedophile
>
> >> Jack McClellan has been convicted of no crime, but he's become a
> >> pariah and an outcast, unwelcome in the Northwest. He loves to blog
> >> about his fantasies of little girls, but in reality he is molesting
> >> all of us.
>
> [...]
>
> Once again Bo0by shows his high intelligence by posting to groups
> where this subject is off topic and then answers himself to post to
> more groups.
>
> I note that he starts by saying that McClellan has been convicted of
> NO crimes
It doesn't matter, he admits to being a pedo shitbag.
That's crime enough in my book.
and then goes on to post a screed of hearsay which would not
> be admitted in any court detailing crimes which are never named and
> which, _obviously_ have not been proven in a court of law.
And still he can't find a home....LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Well done, Bo0by. You've really outdone yourself this time by proving
> that you are totally irrelevant to any discussion.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:36:48 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>Grooming and sexual seduction of children by adults is no less sexual
>assault.
>
>Adults have no business putting their dicks in infants and
>children...period
But you've never shown that David advocates such -- you just continue
to make the claim.
ªºªandcarole(R)(tm)
<someb...@thefort.org> wrote:
>
> You should then cease your posting to asbl
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Keep those jokes coming, shitbag...
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:09:44 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>
> Simpson advocates for adults and parents having sex with "consenting"
> children almost daily....which you are fully aware of.
>
> No matter how many times you pedophiles repeat it the fact remains
> children CANNOT give consent to sex with an adult and every time
> you fuck or interfere with one you are committing a heinous sexual
> assault.
------------------------
You're a completely brainwashed idiot who can't think.
Steve
R. Steve Walz
>
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:09:44 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>children...period
> >
> >But you've never shown that David advocates such -- you just continue
> >to make the claim.
>
>
> That you spin frantically,suggesting Simpson's propaganda
> that if a child "consents" or *wants* one or both parents to fuck
> them, doesn't alter the fact that adults having sex with children is
> assaulting the child.
---------------------------
R. Steve Walz
>
> --------------
> Subject: Re: Judges blames 11 year old girl for her own abuse
>
> Message-ID: <395580...@armory.com>#1/1
>
> > Why? He enforced the law and jailed the adult and a serious warning at the
> > girl is completely in order. I would like more information on it - but in
> > any case IMO his statement was appropriate.
>
> This 11 year old should be punished for getting caught and turning in
> her lover!! Both those things are stupid, we never got caught and
> worked really really hard at it!!
> Steve
----------------
You're wasting your time with this, just ask me what I think.
Steve
wonderer
"的泳ndcarole(R)(tm)" <bobandc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e819c5a-6541-46df...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 12:59?am, faggot pedophile "TomBa -<NP-f36>-"
<someb...@thefort.org> wrote:
say's boob while looking in the mirror.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:26:42 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:36:26 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:14:46 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:40:12 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 16:09:44 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>>>This is your Goebbels type "big lie".
>>>>>
>>>>>Simpson advocates for adults and parents having sex with "consenting"
>>>>>children almost daily....which you are fully aware of.
>>>>
>>>>Simpson has suggested that the age of consent is too high -- he has
>>>>also stated that until such laws are changed, no one should break that
>>>>law. How exactly is that advocating for adults to have sex with
>>>>"consenting children" daily?
>>>>
>>>>>No matter how many times you pedophiles repeat it the fact remains
>>>>>children CANNOT give consent to sex with an adult and every time
>>>>>you fuck or interfere with one you are committing a heinous sexual
>>>>>assault.
>>>>
>>>>I've never suggested that children COULD give consent, now have I? In
>>>>fact, I've always placed the responsibility for such relationships
>>>>with the adults -- WHERE IT BELONGS.
>>>>
>>>>>PS Quit crossposting to alt.freemasonry.
>>>>>
>>>>>They have publicly disowned David Simpson,as AFG are trying to.
>>>>
>>>>Right, they're trying to disown someone because you make claims
>>>>against him that you cannot prove.
>>>>
>>>>>They have no longer any need of sordid pedophiles' rationalizations
>>>>>for their disgusting activities.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't know that discussing the Goons and sharing stories and jokes
>>>>about the shows was a way of rationalizing disgusting activities.
>>>
>>>Actually many of the AFG regulars claim to have killfiled him too.
>>>
>>>You just don't seem to get his words speak for themselves.
>>
>>And you just don't seem to be able to find proof of your accusations.
>>As I said above, I've seen what Simpson says -- I don't agree with all
>>of his beliefs, but I do agree that he has the right to believe them
>>and state them. But, and here's the big one, stating that the age of
>>consent is set too high and that children ought to receive formal
>>education about all aspects of sexuality is NOT advocating for
>>adult/child sexual relationships.
>>
>>>>But
>>>>what can I expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between
>>>>a pedophile and a child-molester?
>>>
>>>A child molester is simply an active pedophile who has been caught.
>>
>>No, a child-molester is someone who molests children -- he may or may
>>not be a bona fide pedophile as in the case of situational pedophiles
>>(which make up about 90% of convictions) or in the case of some sexual
>>predators who don't care who they molest as long as it's someone they
>>can control and terrify.
>>
>>"An active pedophile" -- are you saying that he gets regular exercise?
>>Or is this just another example of how you make up words or twist them
>>to mean things they were never meant to mean? You've accused me of
>>doing so, but it turns out that I'm merely using the words with the
>>meanings that mental health and LEA professionals have been using for
>>years.
>>
>>>>What can I expect from someone who
>>>>doesn't understand the difference between having feelings and acting
>>>>on them?
>>>
>>>The thought is the father to the deed.
>>
>>Oh, isn't that clever?
>
>It's more than clever it's wisdom.
>
>http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/wishisfather.html
>
>> We think about doing a whole lot of things.
>>When someone cuts us off on the highway, we think about ramming them
>>with our cars, but how many people actually do it? When someone pisses
>>us off enough, we think about smacking the shit out of them, but how
>>many people actually do it? When we see a really attractive person,
>>say on TV, we fantasize about making wild, passionate love with them,
>>but how many people actually do it?
>>
>>Some people know the difference between thinking about doing something
>>and actually doing it. Or are you going to tell me that YOU do
>>everything that you think about doing?
>
>Wisdom that you clearly lack..
Lack of wisdom, eh? Here's the simple truth, Brandon. I know the
difference between thinking something and doing it. And I don't punish
myself for wanting to do things that I know I cannot do. And the only
time I give myself free reign to do something is when I know it won't
hurt anyone else but myself. I collect things and spend time on the
Internet almost obsessively -- that harms no one but myself. I
sometimes over-indulge in eating -- again, harming no one but myself.
And, occasionally, I over-react or do something stupid that does end
up hurting someone else's feelings -- for which I apologize and try to
learn from it. But I never allow myself to do anything that would harm
another person physically. Well, maybe the second hand smoke, but
other than that, I am a paragon of self-control.
So tell me, what part of that wisdom am I not understanding?
Mark
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:27:24 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>It's not all about *you* is it?
>
>> And I don't punish
>>myself for wanting to do things that I know I cannot do. And the only
>>time I give myself free reign to do something is when I know it won't
>>hurt anyone else but myself. I collect things and spend time on the
>>Internet almost obsessively -- that harms no one but myself. I
>>sometimes over-indulge in eating -- again, harming no one but myself.
>>And, occasionally, I over-react or do something stupid that does end
>>up hurting someone else's feelings -- for which I apologize and try to
>>learn from it. But I never allow myself to do anything that would harm
>>another person physically. Well, maybe the second hand smoke, but
>>other than that, I am a paragon of self-control.
>>
>>So tell me, what part of that wisdom am I not understanding?
>
>That the thought is the father to the deed.
>
>http://lifecrime.blogspot.com/2007/07/pedophile-gets-more-jail-time-inmate.html
>
> His trial judge was told that he had a highly deviant fantasy life
>that included scenarios of child torture and murder and that he'd
>fantasized the offence that sent him to prison before he committed it.
>
>
>Goodwin was originally sentenced in September 2004 to two-and-a-half
>years in prison for his public attack almost 16 months earlier on a
>seven-year-old girl who'd strayed away from her parents while
>shopping.
>
>In June 2003, in a busy Scarborough mall, the then 21-year-old grabbed
>the child from behind and threw her to the floor between the cash
>check-out and the exit of a store. He then crouched over her, with one
>hand around her neck choking her, while he yanked her pants down with
>his free hand and attempted to sexually molest her right in front of
>horrified shoppers and staff. A store employee pulled him off of the
>child and he was held until police arrived on the scene.
Jeez!
Why wasn't this pedo monster tasered in the genitals?
bobandcarole
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:27:24 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> typed
> furiously:
>
> Some very true words. In future would you please remove all groups
> apart from support groups.
>
> At the very least it annoys Brandon.
Don't you love it when the ignorant bastards continue to
think something that can be corrected in anano-second is
"annoying"?? You're a fart in the wind Davy boy.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:27:24 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>It's not all about *you* is it?
You seem to think so since it's me that you're attacking. And don't
forget, I'm not alone here -- if I am capable of controlling my
behavior so that I do not ever become sexually involved with a minor,
there are plenty of other pedophiles who can do the same thing.
>> And I don't punish
>>myself for wanting to do things that I know I cannot do. And the only
>>time I give myself free reign to do something is when I know it won't
>>hurt anyone else but myself. I collect things and spend time on the
>>Internet almost obsessively -- that harms no one but myself. I
>>sometimes over-indulge in eating -- again, harming no one but myself.
>>And, occasionally, I over-react or do something stupid that does end
>>up hurting someone else's feelings -- for which I apologize and try to
>>learn from it. But I never allow myself to do anything that would harm
>>another person physically. Well, maybe the second hand smoke, but
>>other than that, I am a paragon of self-control.
>>
>>So tell me, what part of that wisdom am I not understanding?
>
>That the thought is the father to the deed.
>
>http://lifecrime.blogspot.com/2007/07/pedophile-gets-more-jail-time-inmate.html
>
> His trial judge was told that he had a highly deviant fantasy life
>that included scenarios of child torture and murder and that he'd
>fantasized the offence that sent him to prison before he committed it.
>
>
>Goodwin was originally sentenced in September 2004 to two-and-a-half
>years in prison for his public attack almost 16 months earlier on a
>seven-year-old girl who'd strayed away from her parents while
>shopping.
>
>In June 2003, in a busy Scarborough mall, the then 21-year-old grabbed
>the child from behind and threw her to the floor between the cash
>check-out and the exit of a store. He then crouched over her, with one
>hand around her neck choking her, while he yanked her pants down with
>his free hand and attempted to sexually molest her right in front of
>horrified shoppers and staff. A store employee pulled him off of the
>child and he was held until police arrived on the scene.
So, he thought about it before he did it. I've thought about a lot of
things that I've NEVER DONE. And I try not to do things BEFORE I THINK
ABOUT THEM. It seems to me that such impulsive behavior would be much
more dangerous.
This man had a choice. He could do things that he obviously knew were
wrong, or he could choose not to do them. He chose poorly, and I
believe he ought to be locked up somewhere where he can never get near
another child. Such should be the consequences for anyone who molests
a child. And this man is a particularly dangerous risk since he didn't
even try to hide what he was doing!
Everyone has a choice. And I don't have to do anything that I know is
wrong -- no matter how much I might think about doing it, no matter
how much I think it might bring me some short-lived amount of
pleasure. I have the power to make that choice, and so do most people.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>A good question..It was certainly what he needed.
>
>I guess they were concerned about accidentally hurting the child he
>was trying to rape.
So much for a "humane" solution.
ªºªandcarole
> Brandon D Cartwright <u...@example.net> wrote innews:omskk39gl333oaskv...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:37:47 +1030, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:27:24 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com> typed
> >>furiously:
>
> >>Some very true words. In future would you please remove all groups
> >>apart from support groups.
>
> >>At the very least it annoys Brandon.
>
> > groups that have publicly denounced you and your filthy pedophile
> > propaganda.
>
> Was this before or after YOU initiated x-posting to non-interested
> groups?
>
>
>
> > Your true motive is to avoid groups where you try to pass as normal
> > seeing your ravings and contacts.
>
> And your true motive is to get attention by blatent x-posting, and then
> have the gall to chastize others when you get called on your anti-social
> behavior...
You didn't read his comment did you?
>
> You should commit yourself before someone gets harmed from your actions.
> (Be sure to fill out the organ donor card...)
Office hours are open again for Sigmund pedophile.....
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:52:27 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>The reference is to a thread on rec.nude about a streaker who was
>tasered in the genitals in front of a crowd of thousands...
>
>Many folk are beginning to wonder about tasering especially in view of
>the mounting deaths caused their deployment.
>
>An argument can be made for banning their use.
>
>But there is no doubt that if this monster didn't need tasering
>nobody does.
>
>Good grief man!
>
>He was choking a child in a shopping mall..and exposing her genitals
>ready to assault her..
>
>What would you suggest..asking him nicely to stop?
Had I been there, I would have done anything it took.
But I wouldn't sit around afterwards trying to find unnecessarily
cruel ways of doing it.
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:40:10 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>Tasering him would have done nicely..
>
>>But I wouldn't sit around afterwards trying to find unnecessarily
>>cruel ways of doing it.
>
>The idea of tasering is that it takes the place of a gun and
>immobilizes such creatures immediately without (usually) killing them.
>
>I think they are open to abuse but find it incomprehensible that you
>feel it would have been inappropriate for this hideous pedophile.
>
You're an idiot. Had I been there at the time (he repeats for the
terminally slow) I would have used any means at my disposal to put the
mongrel down.
But I wouldn't have the gall to sit back after the fact and try to
think of the cruelest possible ways that it could have been done -- as
you seem so fond of doing in your ever-so-humane way.
bobandcarole
>
> - Show quoted text -
Does 4s00th really think anybody is the
least bit interested in anything he posts??
David Looser
news:de42e8b0-e9c2-4e47-8d6a-
Does 4s00th really think anybody is the
least bit interested in anything he posts??
Actually 4s00th is the only poster to these "paedophile" threads who ever
posts anything intelligent or interesting. The only interest in posts from
you or your alter-ego Steve Walz is to see if for once either of you can
show any hint of wisdom or humanity. Qualities that you both conspicuously
lack
David.
bobandcarole
wrote:
> "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:de42e8b0-e9c2-4e47-8d6a-
>
> Does 4s00th really think anybody is the
> least bit interested in anything he posts??
>
> Actually 4s00th is the only poster to these "paedophile" threads who ever
> posts anything intelligent or interesting.
Opinions are like assholes and yours stinks. Loser
You forgot to add alt.fan.goons, I fixed it for you
You're welcome
David Looser
On Nov 28, 6:23?am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:de42e8b0-e9c2-4e47-8d6a-
>
>>> Does 4s00th really think anybody is the
>>> least bit interested in anything he posts??
>
>> Actually 4s00th is the only poster to these "paedophile" threads who ever
>> posts anything intelligent or interesting.
> Opinions are like assholes and yours stinks. Loser
That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
> You forgot to add alt.fan.goons, I fixed it for you
Removed. Why bother them with your bigoted, hate-filled, homophobic crap?
> You're welcome
David.
ªºªandcarole
wrote:
> "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e1c81064-203f-4e08...@b15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 6:23?am, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > news:de42e8b0-e9c2-4e47-8d6a-
>
> >>> Does 4s00th really think anybody is the
> >>> least bit interested in anything he posts??
>
> >> Actually 4s00th is the only poster to these "paedophile" threads who ever
> >> posts anything intelligent or interesting.
> > Opinions are like assholes and yours stinks. Loser
>
> That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
4s00ths ass must feel good considering the fact
that you kiss it so much. Any other pedophiles
that you're in love with?
>
> > You forgot to add alt.fan.goons, I fixed it for you
>
> Removed. Why bother them with your bigoted, hate-filled, homophobic crap?
Added. Loser considers anti-pedophile retoric as "hate filled
homophobic crap"
Are you surprised?
>
> > You're welcome
>
> David.
BBP
"Mark" <all...@nospammingring.com> wrote in message
news:13kkthk...@corp.supernews.com...
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:46:08 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
> <us...@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:27:24 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>In June 2003, in a busy Scarborough mall, the then 21-year-old grabbed
>>the child from behind and threw her to the floor between the cash
>>check-out and the exit of a store. He then crouched over her, with one
>>hand around her neck choking her, while he yanked her pants down with
>>his free hand and attempted to sexually molest her right in front of
>>horrified shoppers and staff. A store employee pulled him off of the
>>child and he was held until police arrived on the scene.
>
> Jeez!
>
> Why wasn't this pedo monster tasered in the genitals?
Ya see its cause the taser should be outlawed for police use so that only
crooks would have weapons thereby ending life as we know it.. This according
to Mathew, or maybe John as I get mixed up.. Oh wait I forgot we cant use
the word taser here unless it has something to do with nudism or Billy
Martin, wasn't he the ex ball player manager of the Yankees seven times
over?
So anyway let us say Martin was at a nudist resort and got tasered, my
question would be should he be sued for disturbing the peace when he screams
to loudly?
BTW all pedos should be tasered and might be now that taser cant be used by
police, but can still be used by prisoners.... just maybe they will taser
the pedo.. he he...
BB is done now p
bobandcarole
> publicly trying to rape a seven year old child
Not at all! Actually it would be a hoot to watch!!
Send the idea to Dateline NBC! :-)
4s00th
<us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:14:51 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:53:35 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:07:14 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:30:24 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright
>>>><us...@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:40:10 -0500, 4s00th <4s0...@hushmail.com>
>>>>>There is nothing whatsoever cruel in tasering a pedophile choking and
>>>>>publicly trying to rape a seven year old child.
>>>>
>>>>Nothing cruel? You're not just talking about tasering someone, you're
>>>>talking about tasering them in the 'nads! Perhaps you use some strange
>>>>definition of the word "cruel" with which I am unfamiliar.
>>>
>>>Actually I simply responded to a rec.nude poster who asked why they
>>>didn't taser his genitals as they had done to another pervert.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If that's what it would have taken to stop him, then I have no problem
>>>>with actually doing it, but I wouldn't pretend that it wasn't cruel!
>>>>Sometimes you have to be cruel -- and that's a fact, but that doesn't
>>>>mean you should enjoy it.
>>>
>>>The police shouldn't enjoy their work?
>>>
>>>They shouldn't get a feeling of deep satisfaction from preventing a
>>>child rape and caging a pedophile?
>>>
>>>Amazing..
>>
>>What's amazing is the way you try to twist words around so that what
>>you say I said has no relation to what I actually said.
>>
>>I repeat, sometimes it is necessary to be cruel, but that does not
>>mean you should enjoy being cruel even when you have no other choice.
>>
>>You were gloating and trying to think of the most possible cruel way
>>to put down that criminal.
>
>So you say...
>
>I merely pointed out that IMO if anyone needed tasering it was that
>pedophile.
Liar. You were looking to promote the most cruel way to take somebody
down. You wanted to laugh about how cruel you could be. You really
should stop painting yourself as such a "humane" person. You care
nothing about protecting anyone as long as you get a cruel bit of a
jolly out of it.
>The pros and cons of tasering is one of the main topics of
>conversation in rec.nude currently..
>
>But feel free to continue taking my exchange with Mark out of context
>if it makes you happy..
>
>> Real policemen take no pleasure in having
>>to harm anyone. Certainly they have the right to take satisfaction in
>>having gotten the job done, but that doesn't mean they gloat about how
>>much cruelty they inflicted doing the job.
>
>Oh really?
>You have changed your tune..
>
>I thought the police were monsters who browbeat children to say that
>they have been assaulted by pedophiles when all the time they
>thoroughly enjoyed sex with an eighty year old man..and in fact
>instigated it?
No, I have presented cases where the police HAVE browbeat and
interrogated children like prisoners to make them "confess" that their
parents molested them, when, in fact, they had not.
I said that the police tend to look for solutions that fit what they
think happened, even to the point of over-looking or even obfuscating
evidence that contradicts what they think happened. Most of them do
not do so out of dereliction or because they are bad cops, more out of
habit, though there are certainly some bad cops out there.
I generally have a high opinion of the police and LEA, but I'm not
blind or stupid as you appear to be.
>>
>>Since you want to call me sick for my so-called bestial lusts,
>
>It's you who insists on classing yourself with those who prey on
>children
It's you who wants to institute cruelty -- and classes yourself with a
pathetic, lame-brain, white-trash hater who actually destroys
everything he claims to believe in with every post he makes. He's a
real Christian, ain't he? A real believer in those US Constitutional
rights he fought for in Vietnam, ain't he? Oh, that's right -- you
don't have a real good grip on any of those principles, either.
>>you really ought to be able to curb your own bestial and cruel lusts.
>
>Since when is wanting pedophiles to get their just desserts a bestial
>cruel lust?
In the first place, since a pedophile is just someone who has feelings
and who may not have ever acted on those feelings anyway, you're not
proposing that they get their just desserts. In the second place, when
you start looking for the most cruel ways to take down a criminal,
you're not talking about just desserts -- you're talking about
satisfying your own bestial desires for vengeance and cruelty. And,
finally, when you propose classifying a group of people as less than
human so that you can cut them, cull their organs and experiment on
them as you wish, you're becoming a good little Nazi who only cares
about satisfying his own bestial lusts for cruelty.