NAMBLA should be respected as a legitimate organization
ChuckL...@yahoo.com
assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that right?
web2...@verizon.net
<ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise their
right to
> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that right?
DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
j r sherman
the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
love and kisses,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
------------------------------------------------------------------
web2...@verizon.net
"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c1884...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <b3JZb.41175$5W3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net
says...
> >
> >
> ><ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
> >> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise their
> >right to
> >> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that
right?
> >
> >
> >DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
>
> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
>
> love and kisses,
Long ago when we decided it was a CRIME to "assemble" your penis in a 7 year
old boy's rectum!!!
Marvin Margoshes
right to
> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that right?
>
So assemble. Who cares? But if you abuse children, watch out.
The Dave©
> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
Would conspiracy to commit a crime be legal?
--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
- Galileo Galilei
Malted Bevis
> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
When you were getting married to Max.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"dog eb tsum yug shit"
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
yyyiii...@yahoo.com
"Malted Bevis" <Str...@Dessert.Filling> wrote in message
news:4037c910$1...@127.0.0.1...
>
>
> > the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
>
> When you were getting married to Max.
that's funny, tommy.
yyyiii...@yahoo.com
"Marvin Margoshes" <physnos...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:103fc8r...@corp.supernews.com...
peter jay assembles yorkshine for quick-release fcuk.
>
>
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
j r sherman
i see. so following your (heh) logic, the right to assemble can be equated to
the rape of a young children? fascinating.
you just have to be from soc.men.
Peter J Ross
> In article <9cOZb.60410$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net says...
>>
>>
>> "j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:c1884...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <b3JZb.41175$5W3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net
>> says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
>>>>> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise their
>>>> right to
>>>>> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that
>> right?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
>>>
>>> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
>>>
>>> love and kisses,
>>
>> Long ago when we decided it was a CRIME to "assemble" your penis in a 7 year
>> old boy's rectum!!!
>
> i see. so following your (heh) logic, the right to assemble can be equated to
> the rape of a young children? fascinating.
>
> you just have to be from soc.men.
Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
him.
Yes, he really is *that* stupid.
--
PJR :-)
The official soc.men FAQ:
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/faq.html
(Remove NOSPAM to reply)
Michael Cook
"Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
news:c19mfa.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
he sounds like a true net kook
Jethro's Giant Brain
> >
> >
> ><ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
> >> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise their
> right to
> >> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that right?
> >
> >
> >DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
>
> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
No dumbass. It's against the law for men to "have fun with little
boys", which in this case means, sexual relations. Got it yet? Ya
fuckin' idiot.
http://chucklysaght.envy.nu/MyDailyRant.html
Jethro's Giant Brain
> In article <9cOZb.60410$1S1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net says...
> >
> >
> >"j r sherman" <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:c1884...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >> In article <b3JZb.41175$5W3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net
> says...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> ><ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
> >> >> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise their
> right to
> >> >> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that
> right?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
> >>
> >> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
> >>
> >> love and kisses,
> >
> >Long ago when we decided it was a CRIME to "assemble" your penis in a 7 year
> >old boy's rectum!!!
>
> i see. so following your (heh) logic, the right to assemble can be equated to
> the rape of a young children? fascinating.
>
> you just have to be from soc.men.
Goddamn, you're fucking clueless.
web2...@verizon.net
> >> >DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
> >>
> >> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
> >>
> >> love and kisses,
> >
> >Long ago when we decided it was a CRIME to "assemble" your penis in a 7
year
> >old boy's rectum!!!
>
> i see. so following your (heh) logic, the right to assemble can be equated
to
> the rape of a young children? fascinating.
>
> you just have to be from soc.men.
When the core argument is ABOUT gaining "ACCESS" and "CONTROL" of young
boys, YES!!! And when gaining that domination over little boys raises to
the level of HYSTERIA it HAS, YES for sure!
web2...@verizon.net
"Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
news:c19mfa.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
> >>>>> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise
their
> >>>> right to
> >>>>> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that
> >> right?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
> >>>
> >>> the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
> >>>
> >>> love and kisses,
> >>
> >> Long ago when we decided it was a CRIME to "assemble" your penis in a 7
year
> >> old boy's rectum!!!
> >
> > i see. so following your (heh) logic, the right to assemble can be
equated to
> > the rape of a young children? fascinating.
> >
> > you just have to be from soc.men.
>
> Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
> him.
So YOU people say!
web2...@verizon.net
"Jethro's Giant Brain" <JethrosG...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:c0ee0f7a.04022...@posting.google.com...
> j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<c1884...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <b3JZb.41175$5W3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net
says...
> > >
> > >
> > ><ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
> > >> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise
their
> > right to
> > >> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that
right?
> > >
> > >
> > >DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
> >
> > the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
>
> No dumbass. It's against the law for men to "have fun with little
> boys", which in this case means, sexual relations. Got it yet? Ya
> fuckin' idiot.
No to HIM shoving up the rear of LITTLE BOYS is his "CIVIL RIGHT!" It's
"TRUE LOVE!"
j r sherman
i see. so the right to assemble is okay, only if you agree with what is being
discussed at said assembly?
and i must assume, from your comment, that sex with young girls is completely
okay, right?
so the sex with young girls crowd has a right to assemble, but the sex with
little boys crowd can't.
so if there's a sex with young girls meeting in neighborhood, you're gonna be
right there supporting their cause.
seems a bit sexist, don't you think???
Master Po
> so the sex with young girls crowd has a right to assemble, but the sex with
> little boys crowd can't.
>
> so if there's a sex with young girls meeting in neighborhood, you're gonna be
> right there supporting their cause.
>
> seems a bit sexist, don't you think???
I bit a sexist on her neighborhood.
I was hanging outside the "Sex with young girls"
alleyway having a cabbage battle with
cartoon character flashbacks from breakfast,
when
the sexist stepped out
from a group
of little boys in a crowd
that looked like it was gonna be.
The little girls were noticeably skirted.
The police came, and took my teethmarks
for fingerprinting.
I got a lollypop.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"To judge from the notions expounded by theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men
simply with a view to crowding hell." -Marquis de Sade
j r sherman
but as i mentioned to the other idiot, in your eyes sex with little girls is
perfectly fine, right?
we can have a thousand chapters of the "Sex with Little Girls" club all over
America, and they have a right to assemble, but the "Sex with Little Boys" clubs
cannot even meet.
this seems a bit unfair. according to you, cracker-king, one group is allowed to
assemble and one is not.
what's the difference between the two groups? both promote acts that are
illegal.
perhaps both of you were unaware that sex with underage girls is just as illegal
as sex with underage boys?
it best to have some knowledge of subject before you engage in the discussion,
ya know? you ending looking so stupid (again and again and again...) when you
don't.
love and kisses,
j r "as always, your superior in all things" sherman
Jethro's Giant Brain
Jeez, you're more fucking ignorant than I thought.
Robert Gautier
Kenneth Pangborn is obsessed with thoughts like these.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com proves it.
share
way OT
ploinknews:c1atn...@drn.newsguy.com...
share
ploink
"Jethro's Giant Brain" <JethrosG...@doctor.com> wrote in message
news:c0ee0f7a.04022...@posting.google.com...
Peter J Ross
> "Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
> news:c19mfa.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
>
>> Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
>> him.
>>
>> Yes, he really is *that* stupid.
>
> he sounds like a true net kook
Golden Killfile, November 1999
Kook of the Month, September 2000
He eventually became so boring that most people started ignoring him.
Michael Cook
"Robert Gautier" <rbga...@dcemail.com> wrote in message
news:d0efdddd.04022...@posting.google.com...
Oh my, and I thought WE had the kookiest kooks.
another one for the file.
mdc
web2...@verizon.net
> > When the core argument is ABOUT gaining "ACCESS" and "CONTROL" of
young
> >boys, YES!!! And when gaining that domination over little boys raises to
> >the level of HYSTERIA it HAS, YES for sure!
> i see. so the right to assemble is okay, only if you agree with what is
being
> discussed at said assembly?
When the purpose of the "assemly" is the sexual exploitation of CHILDREN
. . Yes.. Just as inciting to riot or the violent overthrow of the
government is also LIMITED for purposes of assembly.
> and i must assume, from your comment, that sex with young girls is
completely okay, right?
Young girls OVER age 21. Perhaps.
> so the sex with young girls crowd has a right to assemble, but the sex
with
> little boys crowd can't.
Glad you are finally ADMITTING that is the REAL agenda here. Nope, for
me NO difference. Sex with children, male or female is BAD. But I see NO
push by straights for ACCESS AND CONTROL over LITTLE GIRLS!
> so if there's a sex with young girls meeting in neighborhood, you're gonna
be right there supporting their cause.
Nope. No such group really exists. And the MEDIA would be against it.
> seems a bit sexist, don't you think???
Yes you ARE.
web2...@verizon.net
"Michael Cook" <cook36...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:c1cfql$1eoh6m$1...@ID-206016.news.uni-berlin.de...
Oh you have missed Mr. Moore? He is on his 8th YEAR of his obsession with
me!
Just uses many different names. So far he has had about 6 different versions
of the Gautier name.
Some folks will recall his hundreds of versions of the Stalexander name.
web2...@verizon.net
"Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 04:00:48 -0500, Michael Cook wrote:
>
> > "Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
> > news:c19mfa.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net...
> >
> >> Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
> >> him.
> >>
> >> Yes, he really is *that* stupid.
> >
> > he sounds like a true net kook
>
> Golden Killfile, November 1999
> Kook of the Month, September 2000
>
> He eventually became so boring that most people started ignoring him.
> --
But NOT YOU, right peckerhead?
Master Po
Plonk plonk
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetic.ZapTo.Org
"Maybe we're ALL in the wrong place,
but - what the hell - let's stick around
for no good reason." --Dale Houstman
Peter J Ross
> Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message news:<c19mfa.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net>...
>>
>> Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
>> him.
>
> Who is Ken Pangborn? If he's KRP he's one of the brightest and sanest
> posters on all of Usenet. Again, if Pangborn is KRP it's clear why you
> despise him. I'd despise someone who kicked my ass all over the
> parking lot the way this guy dishes it out to you sick degenerates.
> Most of you should be jail or mental institutions. (Cleopatra)
It looks as if the total number of Pangborn socks on Usenet has now
increased to 500,001.
Fred A. Miller
> Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
> news:<c19mfa.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net>...
>>
>> Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
>> him.
>
> Who is Ken Pangborn? If he's KRP he's one of the brightest and sanest
> posters on all of Usenet. Again, if Pangborn is KRP it's clear why you
> despise him. I'd despise someone who kicked my ass all over the
> parking lot the way this guy dishes it out to you sick degenerates.
> Most of you should be jail or mental institutions. (Cleopatra)
QUITE right! Some of us have some other ideas as well, but won't post
them.
Fred
--
"...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."
Michael Cook
Hmm...
do you have a photo...
Michael Cook
Christ, what a mug on that bozo.
"trial consultant"
What have I been missing?
web2...@verizon.net
"Cleopatra" <Cleo...@linkedto.myprivatehideout.com> wrote in message
news:dad6fe81.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
> > him.
>
> Who is Ken Pangborn? If he's KRP he's one of the brightest and sanest
> posters on all of Usenet. Again, if Pangborn is KRP it's clear why you
> despise him. I'd despise someone who kicked my ass all over the
> parking lot the way this guy dishes it out to you sick degenerates.
> Most of you should be jail or mental institutions. (Cleopatra)
Thanks for that!!
web2...@verizon.net
"Peter J Ross" <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
> On 23 Feb 2004 16:57:42 -0800, Cleopatra wrote:
>
> > Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org> wrote in message
news:<c19mfa.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net>...
> >>
> >> Haven't you met Ken Pangborn before? Even most of the socmen despise
> >> him.
> >
> > Who is Ken Pangborn? If he's KRP he's one of the brightest and sanest
> > posters on all of Usenet. Again, if Pangborn is KRP it's clear why you
> > despise him. I'd despise someone who kicked my ass all over the
> > parking lot the way this guy dishes it out to you sick degenerates.
> > Most of you should be jail or mental institutions. (Cleopatra)
>
> It looks as if the total number of Pangborn socks on Usenet has now
> increased to 500,001.
Hey Petey, bitching because You have NONE???
web2...@verizon.net
> > >
> > > He eventually became so boring that most people started ignoring him.
> > > --
> >
> > But NOT YOU, right peckerhead?
>
> Hmm...
> do you have a photo...
Sorry Honey, I am NOT into same sex marriages.... Strike that, I am not into
interspecies dating either. I want humans.
Michael Cook
web2...@verizon.net
IT'S A CHOICE!
Jethro's Giant Brain
> "Jethro's Giant Brain" <JethrosG...@doctor.com> wrote in message
> news:c0ee0f7a.04022...@posting.google.com...
>
> >> j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<c1884...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> > In article <b3JZb.41175$5W3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net
> says...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > ><ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
> >> > >> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise
> their
> right to
> >> > >> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that
> right?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
> >> >
> >> > the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
> >>
> > No dumbass. It's against the law for men to "have fun with little
> > boys", which in this case means, sexual relations. Got it yet? Ya
> > fuckin' idiot.
>
> but as i mentioned to the other idiot, in your eyes sex with little girls is
> perfectly fine, right?
I never said that, dumbass.
>
> we can have a thousand chapters of the "Sex with Little Girls" club all over
> America, and they have a right to assemble, but the "Sex with Little Boys" clubs
> cannot even meet.
Do you feel slighted, dumbass? Sex with children is wrong. Boys or
girls. Those who want to have sex with children have no right to
assemble to carry out that activity.
>
> this seems a bit unfair. according to you, cracker-king, one group is allowed to
> assemble and one is not.
I never said that, dumbass.
>
> what's the difference between the two groups?
None.
both promote acts that are
> illegal.
You're finally getting it.
>
> perhaps both of you were unaware that sex with underage girls is just as illegal
> as sex with underage boys?
No, we know that, dumbass.
>
> it best to have some knowledge of subject before you engage in the discussion,
> ya know? you ending looking so stupid (again and again and again...) when you
> don't.
You're the one that is acting stupid, dumbass.
>
> love and kisses,
>
> j r "as always, your superior in all things" sherman
You're no one's superior, dumbass.
Jethro's Giant Brain
> "Jethro's Giant Brain" <JethrosG...@doctor.com> wrote in message
> news:c0ee0f7a.04022...@posting.google.com...
>
> >> j r sherman <jr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<c1884...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> >> > In article <b3JZb.41175$5W3....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, k...@verizon.net
> says...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > ><ChuckL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > >news:4036B49E.14820.40902E@localhost...
> >> > >> Some men like to have fun with little boys. If such men exercise
> their
> right to
> >> > >> assemble and associate why should we want to deprive them of that
> right?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >DUHHH! It's against the law? It's a crime for good reasons!
> >> >
> >> > the right to assemble is against the law? when did that happen?
> >>
> > No dumbass. It's against the law for men to "have fun with little
> > boys", which in this case means, sexual relations. Got it yet? Ya
> > fuckin' idiot.
>
> but as i mentioned to the other idiot, in your eyes sex with little girls is
> perfectly fine, right?
I never said that, dumbass.
>
> we can have a thousand chapters of the "Sex with Little Girls" club all over
> America, and they have a right to assemble, but the "Sex with Little Boys" clubs
> cannot even meet.
Do you feel slighted, dumbass? Sex with children is wrong. Boys or
girls. Those who want to have sex with children have no right to
assemble to carry out that activity.
>
> this seems a bit unfair. according to you, cracker-king, one group is allowed to
> assemble and one is not.
I never said that, dumbass.
>
> what's the difference between the two groups?
None.
both promote acts that are
> illegal.
You're finally getting it.
>
> perhaps both of you were unaware that sex with underage girls is just as illegal
> as sex with underage boys?
No, we know that, dumbass.
>
> it best to have some knowledge of subject before you engage in the discussion,
> ya know? you ending looking so stupid (again and again and again...) when you
> don't.
You're the one that is acting stupid, dumbass.
>
> love and kisses,
>
> j r "as always, your superior in all things" sherman
You're no one's superior, dumbass.
>
j r sherman
Brain says...
>> > No dumbass. It's against the law for men to "have fun with little
>> > boys", which in this case means, sexual relations. Got it yet? Ya
>> > fuckin' idiot.
>>
>> but as i mentioned to the other idiot, in your eyes sex with little girls is
>> perfectly fine, right?
>
>I never said that, dumbass.
well, you said, which is posted right above, that's it's against the law to
"have fun with little boys". you made no mention of little girls. one must
assume that if you said nothing about sex with little girls being illegal, then
you approve of such activities.
>> we can have a thousand chapters of the "Sex with Little Girls" club all over
>>America, and they have a right to assemble, but the "Sex with Little Boys" clubs
>> cannot even meet.
>
>Do you feel slighted, dumbass? Sex with children is wrong.
it's something i have always said.
>Boys or
>girls. Those who want to have sex with children have no right to
>assemble to carry out that activity.
fortunately the law, logic, intelligence, awareness, is not on your side at all.
any group has the right to assemble to discuss any idea they so desire, no
matter how offensive that idea may be, and that, in itself, is in no way
illegal.
sorry, chucklesstupid, you're so very wrong (as you always are) on this one.
>>this seems a bit unfair. according to you, cracker-king, one group is allowed to
>> assemble and one is not.
>
>I never said that, dumbass.
well, you said the "sex with little boys" group had no right to meet. you said
nothing about the "sex with little girls" group. one must assume that you were
defending the "sex with little girls" group by not even mentioning them.
>> what's the difference between the two groups?
>
>None.
then how come you did not mention that in your post?
chuckles, the world can only go by what you post. if you are too stupid (which
you most certainly are) to know what you're typing, this is not my fault.
> both promote acts that are
>> illegal.
>
>You're finally getting it.
you still haven't.
>>perhaps both of you were unaware that sex with underage girls is just as illegal
>> as sex with underage boys?
>
>No, we know that, dumbass.
well, the world can only go by what you post. how come you have no understanding
of that simple concept?
>>it best to have some knowledge of subject before you engage in the discussion,
>> ya know? you ending looking so stupid (again and again and again...) when you
>> don't.
>
>You're the one that is acting stupid, dumbass.
you're the one who can't seem to type what you really mean, crackerking.
>> love and kisses,
>>
>> j r "as always, your superior in all things" sherman
>
>You're no one's superior, dumbass.
no? heh.
love and kisses,
j r sherman
Jethro's Giant Brain
> In article <c0ee0f7a.04022...@posting.google.com>, Jethro's Giant
> Brain says...
>
> >> > No dumbass. It's against the law for men to "have fun with little
> >> > boys", which in this case means, sexual relations. Got it yet? Ya
> >> > fuckin' idiot.
> >>
> >> but as i mentioned to the other idiot, in your eyes sex with little girls is
> >> perfectly fine, right?
> >
> >I never said that, dumbass.
>
> well, you said, which is posted right above, that's it's against the law to
> "have fun with little boys". you made no mention of little girls. one must
> assume that if you said nothing about sex with little girls being illegal, then
> you approve of such activities.
Oh, fuck off, you stupid sonofabitch. Jeez...
>
> >> we can have a thousand chapters of the "Sex with Little Girls" club all over
> >>America, and they have a right to assemble, but the "Sex with Little Boys" clubs
> >> cannot even meet.
> >
> >Do you feel slighted, dumbass? Sex with children is wrong.
>
> it's something i have always said.
>
> >Boys or
> >girls. Those who want to have sex with children have no right to
> >assemble to carry out that activity.
>
> fortunately the law, logic, intelligence, awareness, is not on your side at all.
> any group has the right to assemble to discuss any idea they so desire, no
> matter how offensive that idea may be, and that, in itself, is in no way
> illegal.
I said to assemble to carry out that activity. Sexual activity, you stupid fuckhead.
>
> sorry, chucklesstupid, you're so very wrong (as you always are) on this one.
You're a fucking stooge.
>
> >>this seems a bit unfair. according to you, cracker-king, one group is allowed to
> >> assemble and one is not.
> >
> >I never said that, dumbass.
>
> well, you said the "sex with little boys" group had no right to meet. you said
> nothing about the "sex with little girls" group. one must assume that you were
> defending the "sex with little girls" group by not even mentioning them.
See above, dumbass.
>
> >> what's the difference between the two groups?
> >
> >None.
>
> then how come you did not mention that in your post?
>
> chuckles, the world can only go by what you post. if you are too stupid (which
> you most certainly are) to know what you're typing, this is not my fault.
>
> > both promote acts that are
> >> illegal.
> >
> >You're finally getting it.
>
> you still haven't.
>
> >>perhaps both of you were unaware that sex with underage girls is just as illegal
> >> as sex with underage boys?
> >
> >No, we know that, dumbass.
>
> well, the world can only go by what you post. how come you have no understanding
> of that simple concept?
>
> >>it best to have some knowledge of subject before you engage in the discussion,
> >> ya know? you ending looking so stupid (again and again and again...) when you
> >> don't.
> >
> >You're the one that is acting stupid, dumbass.
>
> you're the one who can't seem to type what you really mean, crackerking.
>
> >> love and kisses,
> >>
> >> j r "as always, your superior in all things" sherman
> >
> >You're no one's superior, dumbass.
>
> no? heh.
heh, yourself. you punk.