Questioning thoughtlessness
27 November 2006A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children.
A child molester is someone who molests children.
A heterosexual is someone who is sexually attracted to females.
A heterosexual rapist is someone who rapes females.
Are all heterosexuals rapists? If not, why are all paedophiles rapists?
34 Responses to “Questioning thoughtlessness”
November 27th, 2006 at 7:28 am
The time is comming.
Velocity
November 27th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
you have got to be the dumbest person alive.
a hetro is sexually attracted to females, so you going to tell me the hetro never has sex with a female>?
now ask yourself this,
a pedo is attracted to little kids (pre-puberty) , you going to tell me that they never have sex with them?
if you cant see my point get off the internet, or deal with me ,
have a nice day,
Velocity
November 27th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Velocity,
If a heterosexual knew that he would harm a woman for life and be incarcerated for 25 years, would he still have sex with the woman?
Women are not usually harmed by sex, but kids often are. THAT is why most paedophiles do not have sex with children.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Wrong again User. That is why pedophiles are dangerous.
And hey, did you miss me? Come on, say it, I know you did. Want me to explain Hall to you again? Or are you just being maliciously obtuse?
November 27th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Poor User. I think you’re trying to piss off the wrong person. Ask Rookieeee.
Comment moderation is a blog killer. Are you that much of a coward?
November 27th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
I’m not trying to “piss off” anyone. I responded sensibly to Velocity (AHM) and I will respond to anyone who posts offensive statements at this blog.
“And hey, did you miss me? Come on, say it, I know you did.“
Yes, I did
November 27th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Good User. Then we can get down to business tomorrow.
Shall we start with the NWT report or Hall? Which would you prefer?
November 28th, 2006 at 5:34 am
We could start with this comment -
“Wrong again User. That is why pedophiles are dangerous.“
That is why child molesters are dangerous.
You will, of course, claim that child molesters are paedophiles. If you’re going to make that claim, please quote someone who isn’t trying to sell his software.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Oh Dear. Here we go again.
Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?
User: Women are not usually harmed by sex, but kids often are. THAT is why most paedophiles do not have sex with children.
Stitches: Wrong again User. That is why pedophiles are dangerous.
Now we could go round and round with this statement. We are all well aware that most child molestations are committed by pedophiles, but that’s totally irrelevant in this instance.
What is relevant however, is the fact that pedophiles do have sex with children, whatever you choose to call it. And it is harmful to children whatever you choose to call it. And they do lend support and encouragement to their brothers who sometimes act out when they may not have, left to their own devices.
Now stop trying to change the topic here. Do you want Hall or NWT first?
November 28th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
“We are all well aware that most child molestations are committed by pedophiles“
That’s not true, but people believe it. I’ve linked to the Government report and I’ve linked you to the article of the journalist who wrote a report on Lanning. They disagree with you. Many molestations are committed by parents. You can find a lot of evidence regarding that statement.
“What is relevant however, is the fact that pedophiles do have sex with children, whatever you choose to call it. And it is harmful to children whatever you choose to call it.“
Don’t imply that I’m defending sex with children. You know that I argue from a non-contact stance.
“And they do lend support and encouragement to their brothers who sometimes act out when they may not have, left to their own devices.“
Can you find any evidence of any paed group other than Krumme13 encouraging its members to actually have sex with children?
November 28th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
I’ve linked to the Government report and I’ve linked you to the article of the journalist who wrote a report on Lanning. They disagree with you.
That report does not say what you say it says. I’ve told you this umpteen times. It is also not in conflict with what I say. So I guess we’ll have to start with that one.
As for DiLorenzo, no one gives a rats ass what a journalist thinks. She tried to imply in her article that Lanning said things he didn’t say and is actually the direct opposite of what he DID say.
The journalist Barbara Amiel believes its ok for Michael Jackson to molest little boys….as long as he pays them a few million. Does that make it true because she said it?
Come on User, that type of argument is beneath even you.
Can you find any evidence of any paed group other than Krumme13 encouraging its members to actually have sex with children?
Yes, yes I can.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:24 am
[Reposted with minor edit - I removed a small section of your post because it’s not within our rules - admin]
so Jd420. you hate americans huh?
“if you feel like heaven when hell comes, jump into the nearest hot springs, and call Velocity on the damage report” Mr hacker or should i say programmer, or is it both? [edit] would you prefer to say it isnt so and you dont hate me, because if you hate me , then i am going to have to hate you, which i never hated anyone, considering the worst of the worst, that is saying alot of not hating you, so with that said, are we sworn enimies on the war path , on a mission to find those hot springs, or are you going to retract all americans and exclude me from that list?
The Craziest Fucker on earth
(Mad chemy)
Velocity
November 29th, 2006 at 4:40 am
[Reposted with edit - admin]
And it is harmful to children whatever you choose to call it.
Stichie witchie bitchie all over again have you ever bothered to check out about real harmless consentual non violent close encounters adult kids various ages? do you think that a 13 y.o. is just the same as a 3 y.o.?
you know you and your absolute zeros fellows are just a bigotted bunch of nazis that’s all.
kids aged 9 and over can experience and enjoy different levels of consentual non violent sexual activity like single or mutual masturbation oral sex.
you and your bigotted nazi fellows always simplify and dehumanize any sexual matter reducing everything to the intercourse issue.
you know you are just a blithering idiot Stichie Witchie Bitchie;many childlovers can enjoy kids without intercourse and that’s true reality great also;
to claim that any sexua;l activity adult kid over 9 is harmfull is as stupid as to claim that any kid/kid sexual activity is harmfull; yes it’s only “wrong’ because of your bigotted narrow minded views of sex.
first off do some real proper research before posting; you only manage how ingorant blind and filled with hatred you trully are; you and your nazi fellows.
do you think that any boy over 9 feels raped if he gets sucked?
as an 18 y.o. friend said to me “I’ve never met a boy over 10 who doesn’t like to get sucked” period.
you and your bigotted nazi fellows are just a bunch of idiots blind and deaf.
generalizing that all adult kid sexual encounters are only about rape it’s like saying all the adult male heteros want women just for the pleasure of raping them; how stupid.
you don’t have a clue about the complexity of sex matters once in your fucking stupid puritan Georgia you’ve been raised in the 100& typicall puritan bigotted christian style.
you don’t have a clue about the reality; it oftnely happens in the real world that if a guy [let’s say in mid 20’s] dates an 18 y.o. girl and then they break up so she in a moment of jelousy can easily accused the former bf of raping her abusing her; molestation and abuse allegations are relative but you ussually don’t give a shit about what a kid involved in a non violent consentual sexual realtionship with an adult might say about; yonly your blind bigotry matters.
[edit]
last year on an boylover site I read a story about a guy in the mid 20’s who had a consentual nonviolent sexual relationship with a 9 y.o. boy; they got caught by boy’s mother and the man had to spend 4 years in jail; after he had been realeased from prison the boy aged 13 phoned him and they met up again but the poor boylover was really devastated of the dilemma to continue to meet up puting themselves in danger or not; that’s because of your stupid laws and your bigotry and hatred;
now don’t come up yelling that it’s a lie and it’s an abuse coz you only manage to embarass yourself;
I’ve been following for a while your dogmatic cheap rethoric and the conclusions is:
go back to your brainless bigotted nazis your absolute zeros fellows and enjoy each other on your fucking blogs; have some great fun!!!!!!!!!!!!
BESIDE THAT TRUE CHILDLOVERS ALWAYS THINK OF THE IDEAS AND IDEALS OF ROMANCE–DOES THAT BOTHER YOU?
“a hetro is sexually attracted to females, so you going to tell me the hetro never has sex with a female>? “
yes stupid devoted fanatic catolic priests who are not either pedos or gays, monks etc.you are an idiot!!!!!!
Have a nice day Stichie!!!!!!!!!!FF21.
[ff21 - please be careful and make sure that you don’t encourage other members to act illegally. Thanks]
November 29th, 2006 at 4:41 am
This Is the last time you hear from me.
As you know this is what i said to Damien (rookiee) on pedologues.
You know what comes next.
Velocity
November 29th, 2006 at 4:45 am
LMAO
Which paedo dumpster did you pull that anon out of?
November 29th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Blue ribbon, stop comparing pedophiles with heterosexuals. Pedophiles are perverts with a mental ilness, it is not a sexual orientation. In your case you have violent characteristics which make you even more dangerous to children (ask your father). Most pedophiles end up raping children, simply because children do not want sex with adults, the restraint pedophiles keep talking about fails in the end and rape is the end result. Maybe what you are saying in this post is the same material what got your other blog deleted. Acme cleaning services will be certainly working on your complete removal from the blogs, no more of your pedophile lies and propaganda.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Velocity - I highly encourage you to refrain from threatening insinuations.
JD420 - I highly encourage you not to respond to such things.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
My apologies, admin, thank’s I was just pointing to thruth sorry if I crossed the red line. All my best wishes folks!!!!Cheers, FF21.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Wow, I’ve never before seen such cumbersome quantities of dime-a-dozen hyperbolic horseshit and cheap scare tactics compressed into one little space.
“Velocity” and “Llort.” You truly deserve each other.
November 30th, 2006 at 1:44 am
nihil - I strongly encourage you to keep pissing Velocity off
November 30th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
I keep noticing the topic of mental illness being brought up - i.e., we’re crazy. “You’re crazy! That’s not a sexual orientation! You’re just … crazy! Crazy, sick, and mentally ill!” It’s like a mantra for those who fear and hate what they don’t understand. The ever-handy and ultimate security blanket. “Yer crazy, yer sick, yer mentally ILL!” Kind of quaint. Quaint in the same way we look back on people of the 13th century attributing every behavior they didn’t understand - and any behavior that ran counter to societal norms - to devil possession as quaint.
And, let’s face it: it’s the same mentality at work. But, like every other regurgitated myth and lie uttered about us, the claim of mental illness doesn’t hold water, and for one simple logical fact. Not only is it unsubstantiated guesswork on the part of those harboring morbid levels of malicious bias, but they are misapplying the term mental illness.
Remember, homosexuality was deemed a mental illness at one time (of course, some “morally upright” folk still consider it such even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It’s interesting that whenever it suits their purposes, people will cite scientific/sociological/psychological literature until they turn blue in the face … unless the literature provides evidence they don’t like - in which case they will rant against it with equal fervor. I call it Selective Validation).
It seems that certain human behaviors are relegated to a temp directory named Mental Illness until such time as science catches up and the truth comes to light; if it turns out not to be a mental illness, then it’s moved to a proper directory.
As for the DSM-IV, people rarely seem to read to the part where it states that to be considered a mental illness, “the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors [must] cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.” That’s what mental illness IS - impairment of some kind. Illness = impairment.
And since the important qualifier quoted above does not apply to me (I function perfectly well in social, occupational, etc., situations), I am not mentally ill. In my case, my love for boys is not an impairment, and the only distress I might feel fleetingly from time to time is caused by extrinsic hostility directed my way because of what I am. However, this isn’t an impairment - just a natural reaction to being grossly misunderstood and hated.
Therefore I am not mentally ill. I just happen to love boys. Occam’s Razor, y’know.
But supposing we WERE mentally ill. Toward what other illness, especially mental illness, is hostility and enmity directed at the sufferer rather than pity, compassion and a desire to heal or help the afflicted? Realize that sufferers of mental illness were often thought to be possessed by the devil in medieval times, and were treated very badly until fairly recently. But these days the mentally ill are treated with significantly more understanding. Mental illness is seen for what it is, a biological disorder of the brain. An illness like any other somatic illness. Our antagonists come here and call us crazy and sick, yet, paradoxically, we are still held accountable for being attracted to boys, even though being mentally ill logically exonerates us from responsibility in the matter. There’s a reason why mental illness is an acceptable defense in the realm of law. So our antagonists have gotten themselves entangled in a big logical impasse. Are we mentally ill or not? If we are, we should be treated with the understanding afforded to other mentally ill people. Who these days calls for putting paranoid schizophrenics to death on the basis they are paranoid schizophrenics? On the other hand, if we’re not mentally ill, then they should stop citing the DSM and start relating to us as people who merely happen to possess different tastes. You can’t have it both ways without coming off looking ridiculous.
Then we have the other jaded standby, in this case put forth by llort when he wrote, “Most pedophiles end up raping children.” Which, of course, is as unsubstantiated a claim as the others. A variation of this myth is that every pedophile is a ticking timebomb and will eventually explode. Now I’m sure llort needs to believe such hogwash. His hobby depends on it, after all. And he presents it with the cocksure aplomb possessed by one who is sure everything one is saying is not only common knowledge, but absolute scientific fact as well. Therefore it shouldn’t prove too difficult for llort to back up this particular claim with some references. I mean, he gave us a little leeway with his qualifier “most.” That’s big of him. So what’s “most”? 99 percent? 80 percent? 65 percent? Whatever. Please provide links to any non-clinical studies where your claim has been scientifically verified. Why non-clinical? Well, because clinical studies only give half the picture (if that); they provide one side of the story only - and that doesn’t make for proper scientific research, let alone conclusive evidence. Clinical studies by their very nature are biased. It would be the same as examining incarcerated heterosexual rapists and then attributing their criminal characteristics to all heterosexuals. Oddly, it’s common practice to make this logically fallacious leap where pedophiles are concerned; yet if applied to any other sexual orientation or group, everyone will instantly acknowledge the absurdity. It’s called bias. And bias is about as scientifically sound as uninformed guesswork.
Finally, I would also request some scientific confirmation of the claim that “children do not want sex from adults.” To even make this claim implies one believes one knows first-hand the thoughts, feelings and desires of every living child on this earth. And that’s kind of ludicrous, isn’t it?
I hope I’m not asking too much, llort. And, hurry. Apparently the end of this particular blog universe is nigh, if we’re to believe TEKA (The Ego Known As) velocity. Make your case now or never.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:33 am
Back to the mental illness issue, I’d like to ask an interesting question. Is Boylove a singular symptom of a larger psychosis, or is it a mental illness unto itself? There’s no “Boylove Disease” in any psychiatric tomes old or new. There’s stuff about “paraphilias” (i.e., uncommon sexual interests that don’t necessarily connote illness but are presented more as a sideshow of culturally marveled-at (and sometimes morally frowned upon) oddities in the continuum of human sexual behavior. Such as guys who are turned on by high heels, golden showers, scat … or sheep in lingerie - you know, that sort of thing. And children, of course. Homosexuality was once deemed a clinical paraphilia:
[Homosexuality was previously listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-I and DSM-II, but this was declassified from both DSM-III and DSM-IV, consistent with the change of attitude among psychiatrists. There is still a disorder of homosexuality, but this refers to clinical distress caused by the repression of homosexuality. As of 2004, transvestic fetishism, but not transvestitism, was still listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-IV-TR. - Wikipedia]
So if we’re talking about a general, generic form of mental illness here, what makes the “sufferer” attracted to boys rather than, say, earthworms, redwood trees, or the living room couch?
Of what mental illness is Boylove a symptom? I fully understand the all-too-human urge to deem something insane (or, hell, Just Plain Evil) on the basis it skews from an established norm (i.e., missionary heterosexual sex between a male and female partner of legal age, ideally married). “This guy is attracted to little boys. My god, that’s SICK. He’s gotta be insane.” This results in not having to trouble oneself too deeply with the more subtle intricacies of the phenomena observed, because, frankly, this leaves precariously open the possibility that - gasp! - one could ALSO find children erotically appealing. Calling us nuts is a way of building a dam between them and that possibility. Like I mentioned before, it’s a security blanket. They just qualify an attraction to boys as a mental illness in order to assuage fear of their own potential feelings, to maintain that distance. “The lady protests too much, methinks.”
Other reasons for this “anti-ism” are:
1) Scapegoating others in order to quell their own inner demons. Projecting their frustrations outward at some fashionably-despised target so they don’t have to sit and contemplate their own wretched state of affairs. Often this type of individual can only inspire a sense of self-importance or worth in himself by beating others down. This usually takes on a facade of “moral indignation” as the perceived justification or license.
2) Ego-Masturbation. The Internet Anti dishes out hate for the sheer sport of it. Often lacking any self-esteem in the real world, these people thrive on destroying others’ lives or interfering with them in some way in order to feel in control of something, anything. In other words, they are on level with your average schoolyard bully with major personal issues. These types hate perceived weakness in others, because it reminds them of their own weakness, and so lash out, mistaking the mirror for a window. On the flip-side, ego-masturbation can result in a messiah complex. Sound familiar?
3) “Survivors” of formative sexual abuse. Human beings have this perplexing way of picking at scabs - both their own scabs and those of others - and thus either preventing their wounds from healing, or else resulting in serious scarring. That’s what we do to the sexually abused child. When a child falls down and skins his knee, whether he will cry or not often depends on the reaction he gets. We’ve all seen this phenomenon in action. If the skinned knee is followed by overly concerned and sentimental coddling on the part of a parent - “Oh, baby! Oh! You poor little thing! Oh! You fell down! Honey, are you okay? Oh goodness gracious dear me, you poor little thing” - ten to one the kid is going to start bawling. But if you see the kid is really all right, and even if he is in obvious momentary pain, responding to the accident in the opposite way with amusement and laughter and humor will often provoke the child to react likewise. In a few minutes, the pain is forgotten; the child gets up and goes on with the rest of his day thinking nothing of it.
Same, I believe, when it comes to an unwanted touch on the willie by inebriated Uncle Joe on Thanksgiving Day in the second floor bedroom. Short of brutal tortuous rape, where is the sense in prolonging the child’s traumatization by constantly picking at his mental scabs by reminding him he was victim to something more horrible than murder and coddling him like he had been attacked to within an inch of his life by a grizzly bear? Let him stand up and go on with the rest of his life, for gods sake. What with counselors picking at his scab and parents picking at his scab and the media picking at his scab and the courts and the police picking at his scab, on and on and on, it’s no wonder these kids carry this baggage into adulthood and cannot function properly as adults.
The hatred for Uncle Joe (and the whole wretched business resulting from his act of indiscretion) thus becomes intolerable and it must be vented. On anybody. So we have these sexual abused people (hardly survivors in any sense, considering they weren’t allowed to survive; if they truly were survivors, they wouldn’t be on these campaigns of harassment in the first place) whose scabs were never allowed to heal coming to these blogs and boylove forums to essentially get back at Uncle Joe. The hatred toward us is as unreasonable as it is unquenchable. However, it is understandable, and hardly uncommon of any victims of rape. Many women hate and distrust all men after they are raped by one of them.
Some of them, heaven forbid - and damn me for saying it, right? - enjoyed the sexual moments as children, lending even more guilt, horror, and confusion into the noxious mix.
4) Those with vested greed-based interests in shutting us up. Those whose livelihoods depend on demonization of pedophiles in order to forward their careers in politics, certain sects of law enforcement, those who work in the field of victimology, vigilante cults like PJ, and suchlike, who all share the same zeal to rid themselves of the threat implied by opposing viewpoints.
5) Any combination of the above.
People, like llort, will go to great lengths to avoid being bothered by the proposition that maybe, just maybe, I’m attracted to boys because that’s the way I’m hard-wired. That I’m merely different. “You must have somehow become mentally ill! You … you … you MUST HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED AS A CHILD! Yes, that’s it.”
This myth states that pedophilia is caused by the “sufferer” having been sexually abused himself while in his/her formative years. But that leaves one question. Who sexually abused the very first pedophile in human history? Was it a hard-up, otherwise normal, robust heterosexual opportunist who couldn’t get any from the same-age females in his tribe? If that’s the case, we can attribute the genesis of pedophilia to “normal” heterosexuality! Thanks, guys!
Was I sexually abused? Nope. Nor was I ever dropped on my head. Nor can my pedophilia be explained by the notion that I am “afraid” of adults of the same or opposite sex. (That one is a strangely common myth - popularized in old psychological literature - which, when looked at for what it is, is about as logical as claiming that purple is my favorite color because I’m afraid of the other colors in the spectrum, or that I’m into electronic music because I fear acoustic music. Indeed, if fear of adults WERE the “cause” of my boylove, I’d be an opportunist, not a pedophile. Actual aesthetic, erotic, romantic attraction to boys would not be present were I the opportunist type of “pervert.” Many molestations are carried out by stepdaddies who no longer get any from their wives. They’re not attracted to children per se, except in the way they are easy targets for conniving heterosexual guys who lack any appreciable IQ after the blood has drained out of their brains and into their pricks.)
So if anyone else has anymore myths he’d like to get off his chest, please feel free to post them here, and I will be more than happy to oblige in debunking them. That’s MY hobby.
I’ll conclude by saying boys are my life. They are my breath. They are the most beautiful creations to grace this world, and I would have it no other way. My love for boys is as strong as your hate for me. And in the end, which is the nobler: love or hate?
December 1st, 2006 at 1:00 pm
“Women are not usually harmed by sex, but kids often are. THAT is why most paedophiles do not have sex with children.”
That’s a LIE, pure and plain. Most paedophiles do not have sex with children because they AREN’T ALLOWED to have sex with them, and because most children are NOT attracted to paedophiles. If AoC laws were abolished as most of you “child lovers” wish, I’m sure MOST of you would actively seek kids to have sex with.
December 1st, 2006 at 2:45 pm
You fail.
You make the classic mistake of seeing the attraction of children in the same way as that of an adult.
Children are not hormonally attracted to people, at least not to the degree that adults are. But children ARE attracted to how a person treats them, how much trust they can invest in a person, etc…as opposed to adults, where (let’s face it), all that stuff is peripheral to whether there is “chemistry,” at least in the outset.
The use of terms and rhetoric is interesting.
“Seek kids to actively have sex with”
Yeah, like “normal” adults actively seek people they’re attracted to to have sex with.
I’m sure you’re envisioning paedophilic relations as situations where someone goes down to the playground or something and bribes a child into sex, or something like that. I could tell you that image is a caricature produced by excessive exposure to popular stereotype. But I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Aztram’s still a little touchy about that whole “crazy” thing.
not to worry, Azzy, DSM-V, due for release in 2010, will still consider you a sick piece of shit.
for more info- www.dsm5.org
enjoy!=)
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Most paedophiles do not have sex with children because they AREN’T ALLOWED to have sex with them, and because most children are NOT attracted to paedophiles. If AoC laws were abolished as most of you “child lovers” wish, I’m sure MOST of you would actively seek kids to have sex with.
More unsubstantiated nonsense. Where are you getting this information? It’s like if I came on and said “All you heteros! You … you … all hate broccoli! I know this!”
But speaking for myself, I’d only say that if the AOC laws were abolished that would mean it had become common knowledge sex wasn’t “harmful” to children, after all. And if that were the case, what would be your qualm with mutually-desired intergenerational sexplay (besides personal moral disapproval)?
And saying that kids aren’t attracted to pedophiles is like saying holes aren’t five feet deep. There’s no possible way to prove or disprove it, but one can only take into account the law of averages. I also have to dispute the claim in a philosophical sense: why is attraction necessary? Children aren’t often attracted to their grandmothers either; that doesn’t mean they love them any less. You seem to be projecting your adult views onto children again. Children do not often relate to others on the basis of physical looks like teenagers and adults do. Children, until they’re conditioned out of it, often relate to others on the basis of what’s inside a person. Physical looks might as well be transparent. And as long as you don’t look like an ogre cyclops and stink like five tons of rotting skunk carcasses, I don’t see how this particular point of yours possesses much merit.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Rez, how do those sour grapes taste?
Heh.
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:19 am
Llort is conducting a campaign to take down gloriousgirls blog.One part of eblogger TOS reads:You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable
I believe that rez/llort are the most hatefull bloggers around and their blog-acme cleaning should be flagged.A counter effort should be made to take down that hatefull blog and it’s foul mouthed hatefull bloggers.
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Good luck Bill LMAO!
December 4th, 2006 at 1:00 am
so Jd420. you hate americans huh?
“if you feel like heaven when hell comes, jump into the nearest hot springs, and call Velocity on the damage report” Mr hacker or should i say programmer, or is it both? [edit] would you prefer to say it isnt so and you dont hate me, because if you hate me , then i am going to have to hate you, which i never hated anyone, considering the worst of the worst, that is saying alot of not hating you, so with that said, are we sworn enimies on the war path , on a mission to find those hot springs, or are you going to retract all americans and exclude me from that list?
The Craziest Fucker on earth
(Mad chemy)
Velocity
…what…
…the…
…fuck?
~blinks~
I’m afraid you’re honestly going to have to explain what the hell you’re talking about… if you want me to know what the hell you’re talking about.
December 4th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Not everyone has sex with what they’re attracted to.
Consider, for example, back when homosexuality was illegal. Many homosexuals simply didn’t pursue their interests out of respect for the law.
Obviously many did, going behind the scenes. As adults I guess that’s their risk to take.
Unfortunately, such things aren’t responsible or fair to kids for pedophiles to do. Getting arrested or being interrogated in court is something it’s better to try and avoid kids having to do, so rather than break a law to protest it, peacefully advocating legal reform is more responsible.
December 4th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Rez, how do those sour grapes taste?
what are you talking about?
December 4th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
I believe that rez/llort are the most hatefull bloggers around
thanks!=)
May 19th, 2008 at 1:25 am
You are right.All pedophiles are not rapists.Among pedophiles there are good and bad people…