View Full Version : WARNING to parents and children reading this board
latinijral
03-27-2005, 08:30 PM
WARNING TO PARENTS AND CHILDREN READING THIS BOARD
Some independent skeptics organizations/forums promotes others Skeptic Organizations links on their site. I hope this one can make the difference.
Some of those Skeptic Organizations are named on this site:
http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another FMSF Advisory Board member, James Randi, was involved in a scandal in which (according to court records): "The scientist's lawyers sought to discredit Mr. Randi by playing taped conversations of teen-age boys who called the magician's home allegedly for sex."
[ Byrd v Randi (Civil Action No. MJG-89-636 in the United States District for the Court for the District of Maryland.] Transcripts of the tape are also part of the court record in Geller v Randi, (Civil Action No 91-1014-SSH in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The transcripts are contained in Exhibit 40 to Exhibit U].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prometheus Books , publishers of Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults, is run by Paul Kurtz , Professor emeritus of Philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. He is chairman of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) which runs the Skeptical Inquirer . Prometheus publishes an extensive Human Sexuality Books section under the editorship of Vern Bullough (AAA10/March 1996), Dean of Natural and Social Science at State University, New York, who is a CSICOP Board member.
Vern Bullough is also listed as a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine in which Dr Ralph Underwager , co-founder of the FMSF in the US said he thought having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will; that paedophiles should make their loving image clearer to the outside world; and that the USA was virulently anti-sexuality at present. His wife, Hollida Wakefield, who also took part in the interview said she thought it would be "nice" if someone could do a longitudinal study of 100 twelve year old boys in loving relationships with paedophiles. More recently on the Internet, Dr Underwager posted further thoughts in which he emphasised his belief that the "criminalization of sex" was destroying the social compact.
Prometheus also publishes the books of James Randi, an ex-CSICOP Member and present FMSF Advisory Board member.
Other FMSF Board Members, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Elizabeth Loftus, Loren Pancratz, Thomas Sebeok are also CSICOP board members.[ Accuracy About Abuse Newsletter April 1996]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You had the right to know what “extra” publications and “thoughts” some co- founders members promoted or did.
Coincidences ?
_________________
P.S: Sorry for my english or if your idol is in the report.
Crumb
03-27-2005, 08:37 PM
:scratch:
Ymir's blood
03-27-2005, 09:10 PM
:spam:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4097
:spamhammer:
livius drusus
03-27-2005, 09:22 PM
It's a cut and paste, definitely, but I think there's a little more going on here than spamming. latinijral has a long history of conflict with the JREF organizaton and James Randi in particular, a conflict which has led to 30 page threads on at least two forums that I know of.
I am disappointed that your first post here is a copy and paste rehashing your beef against JREF and CSICOP. I would have preferred that you participate in this community in a more genuine fashion, but nonetheless, welcome to FF, latin.
lisarea
03-27-2005, 09:30 PM
damn, grady, your comp crashed, that sucked,
still, I am glad that your friend got it up and running.
(Did I do that right?)
Crumb
03-27-2005, 09:32 PM
:giggles:
Dingfod
03-27-2005, 09:39 PM
Riley G. (http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/rileyfaq.htm), if that's who you really are, this is bunk. (http://66.221.71.68/psir.htm) A jury didn't bite in Byrd v. Randi, despite deciding in Byrd's favor, they awarded Byrd nothing, not even legal expenses. It was a suit brought by Byrd because Randi accused Byrd of being a convicted pediphile at one of Randi's shows. Turns out Byrd had admitted to having sex with a minor, but wasn't technically "convicted". There is no evidence of any sex tapes of Randi, none were presented in court.
Uri Geller lost his suit against Randi and CSICOP, ordered to pay $120,000 for filing what the court deemed to be a frivolous complaint. After two failed appeals to the verdict, Geller was ordered to pay $70K and the first $50K of any proceeds from Geller's suit against his own lawyers.
I don't know about the books Prometheus Press prints, but the full title of the book you cite is Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults: A Scientific Study.
Assesses the social constructs of sexuality and examines the various motivations behind sexual encounters between adults and children, presenting the findings of two important research projects on pedophilia: that of C.K. Li, who conducted voluntary interviews with men who admitted to a sexual interest in young girls or boys; and that of D.J. West and T.P. Woodhouse (co-authors, with Li, of this volume), who questioned groups of adult males, both students and others, about their recollections of sexual encounters when they were boys (and compared the findings with those of a similar survey of women). Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.
Skeptic's Dictionary's take on this book and the accusations (http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk6.html) in what they call Mass Media Funk.
Petra
03-28-2005, 09:53 AM
nICE WORK, WARRENLY.
oops, caps lock :blush:
Godless Dave
03-28-2005, 10:50 AM
Won't ANYBODY think of the CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Dingfod
03-28-2005, 12:03 PM
There's nothing wrong with watching out for children's interest, when it's well-founded. But when the accusations come mainly from guys like Uri Geller and admitted sexual predators, I don't give them a lot of slack. One of the worst things you can do to someone is to falsely accuse them of child sexual abuse, there's enough of that to go around in the contentious divorce arena.
latinijral
03-29-2005, 04:24 AM
There's nothing wrong with watching out for children's interest, when it's well-founded. But when the accusations come mainly from guys like Uri Geller and admitted sexual predators, I don't give them a lot of slack. One of the worst things you can do to someone is to falsely accuse them of child sexual abuse, there's enough of that to go around in the contentious divorce arena.
Then you must define if YOU consider peadophilia like a child sexual abuse.
The editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) is Vern Bullough.
Vern Bullough is also a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine.
The FMSF advisory board members are also founders of CSICOP and the JREF.
Dr Ralph Underwager , co-founder of the FMSF in the US said, in an interview of PAIDIKA, that having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will.
Here is the original interview.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html
And you still think this is about URI GELLER?
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
P.D.
Thank you for your welcome Livius, and yes I am genuine with my warning.
Crumb
03-29-2005, 04:37 AM
So what exactly is your point?
justaman
03-29-2005, 04:53 AM
Man I'm glad this guy's here. There's way too many normal intelligent people around, just gets boring. :yup:
latinijral: let's assume for a moment that Randi is the world's worst kiddy-fiddler. Does that actually undermine his logic in any way or...? I mean this guy isn't supposed to be a role-model, he just undermines belief in silly things.
P.S. I also find it mildly amusing that you seem so adverse to sexual perversion of this nature and yet you have a picture of a man with a little sombrero on his winky as your avatar. :giggle:
The point is that latin is accusing James Randi, et al. of being a pedophiles although he'll never do so directly because he knows it's libelous. Same dance, same tune, same latin. http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/Rolleyes2.gif
viscousmemories
03-29-2005, 05:45 AM
Some independent skeptics organizations/forums promotes others Skeptic Organizations links on their site. I hope this one can make the difference.
I think you might have misunderstood what the Freethought Forum is about, latinijral.
Although we have more than a few skeptics among us, we are not committed to supporting or promoting skepticism or skeptical organizations. So I'm not sure why you are taking the same approach--attacking skepticism and skeptics--that ultimately led to your being banned at SkepticalCommunity (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=60022#60022) and the Skeptic Friends Network (http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4107) (just last week). Of course you are free to post whatever you want, but if you're trolling for a hostile reaction from skeptics I think you're wasting your time here. If there's something more substantial you want to discuss I'm afraid I don't understand what it is.
Goliath
03-29-2005, 05:47 AM
[With Apologies to Dave Chapelle...]
Forget about latin's warning! There are more important things to worry about!
Did you know that in our very midst, homosexuals are trying to get married?! Gays are trying to marry each other, people! It's horrible! Two females loving each other...rubbing against each other...the nipples getting all hard and...the...bouncy..and snug....ummmm....
It makes me sick!
Now, if you'll excuse me.....
:D
Dingfod
03-30-2005, 01:43 AM
Then you must define if YOU consider peadophilia like a child sexual abuse.What the ever-loving fuck is that supposed to mean? I have no love for pediphiles whatsoever. If I had ever caught one doing something to one of my daughter's I'd probably have killed them on the spot.
You've made allusions to Randi and others being pediphiles without so much as a scintilla of evidence, now I think you're trying to paint me with the same off-color brush. You're way off base.
latinijral
03-30-2005, 03:53 AM
Then you must define if YOU consider peadophilia like a child sexual abuse.What the ever-loving fuck is that supposed to mean? I have no love for pediphiles whatsoever. If I had ever caught one doing something to one of my daughter's I'd probably have killed them on the spot.
You've made allusions to Randi and others being pediphiles without so much as a scintilla of evidence, now I think you're trying to paint me with the same off-color brush. You're way off base.
First ……relax.
The James Randi sexual scandal was many years before URI GELLER “fame”.
J.R. is innocent according to the records.
Your efforts to twist the point, focusing your defence to Randi and other CSICOP members, in attacking URI GELLER like an admitted sexual predator , just showed to me that you are off base.
I understand how you skipped all the facts that are clearly showed in the link I posted at my OP.
The “scintilla of evidence”:
The editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) is Vern Bullough.
Vern Bullough is also a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine and he is also a MEMBER OF CSICOP.
The FMSF advisory board members are also founders of CSICOP and the JREF.
Dr Ralph Underwager , co-founder of the FMSF in the US said, in an interview of PAIDIKA, that having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will.
Here is the original interview.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nud...nderwager2.html
Are they PRO paedophilia?
It is a simple YES or NO.
According to your point the answer is……..?
You can ignore me if you don’t want to give an answer.
QUOTE:
“One would think that those allied with a group of falsely accused
perpetrators would distance themselves from pedophilia.”
http://www.feminista.com/v1n9/false-memory.html
Crumb
03-30-2005, 04:08 AM
What point are you trying to make latinijral?
What action do you expect us to take based on this informaion?
How does this evidence mean to you? If you have evidence that one of the gentleman you mentioned has committed a crime--especially if he was victimizing children--then you should take this evidence to the proper authorities and get them arrested and off the streets. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air. In which case I again ask you: What is your point?
justaman
03-30-2005, 05:50 AM
Clearly you are intending to discredit skeptics. Why? And have a go at answering the question rather than posting more links to shit we don't care about. :D
beyelzu
03-30-2005, 07:03 AM
shit,
in related news guys, my google of james randi sexual scandal showed that arthur c clarke who worked with randi was once accused of being a pedophile. obviously, all skeptics and scientists fuck children.
a few questions spring to my mind.
1. why didnt I see randi at last years nambla convention
2 will I ever be able to read 2001 again?
John Carter
03-30-2005, 09:36 AM
What does anything you've posted have to do with the Freethought Forum? Even if any of the people you mentioned had anything to do with this board, your OP is a classic, almost textbook example of a real ad hominem argument.
Dingfod
03-30-2005, 12:45 PM
The James Randi sexual scandal was many years before URI GELLER “fame”.
J.R. is innocent according to the records.Then why do you bring it up?
Your efforts to twist the point, focusing your defence to Randi and other CSICOP members, in attacking URI GELLER like an admitted sexual predator , just showed to me that you are off base.I twisted nothing. I never said anything about Uri Geller being an admitted sexual predator, I merely linked him to one. I did say that the Mr. Byrd that sued James Randi was an admitted sexual predator. However, since Uri Geller tried unsuccessfully to use supposed evidence from Mr. Byrd in his defamation lawsuit against Randi and CSICOP, I have to wonder about the associations he chooses to make. Besides, I think Geller is a complete sham, and so do Randi and CSICOP and a whole lot of other people. If you dispute that, then you reveal your true reasons for attacking the fellows that you attack, they're skeptics.
I understand how you skipped all the facts that are clearly showed in the link I posted at my OP.I didn't skip shit. You didn't provide any evidence.
The “scintilla of evidence”:
The editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) is Vern Bullough.So you say, but I don't know that and you didn't provide any proof of that.
Vern Bullough is also a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine and he is also a MEMBER OF CSICOP.Again, you repeat yourself, leaving me no choice but to repeat myself: So you say, but I don't know that and you didn't provide any proof of that. I don't know Paidika from Paduca. Educate me.
Dr Ralph Underwager , co-founder of the FMSF in the US said, in an interview of PAIDIKA, that having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will.Sounds like a religious nut rather than a good skeptic.
Are they PRO paedophilia?
It is a simple YES or NO.The answer is I DON'T KNOW AND YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE AMPLE EVIDENCE TO CONVINCE ME OF WHAT YOU CLAIM.
According to your point the answer is……..?
You can ignore me if you don’t want to give an answer.I can ignore you? Okay, I will. That's all folks.
I'll admit, I'm halfway afraid to click on any links provided by latinijral out of fear they link to child porn sites.
I'll admit, I'm halfway afraid to click on any links provided by latinijral out of fear they link to child porn sites.Question: If we did click on a link and unwittingly go to a child porn site, can we be prosecuted for it?
livius drusus
03-30-2005, 02:10 PM
I suppose it would be possible, Beth, because any page you view, even just for a second, will cache its images on your hard drive. Theoretically then, if you were investigated for child pornography and your hard drive were scanned, those pictures could be found and you could be charged with possession.
It's a highly unlikely scenario, though.
:( I've come across those sites. Sigh and I am sooo anti-child porn. I have, however, immediately emailed someone in the sex crimes division in the FBI with the URL's. I'm sure it is a good thing now. At least I covered my behind.
Crumb
03-30-2005, 04:50 PM
Gee, the guys in the sex crime division of the FBI must have hard drives crawling with child porn. Let's report 'em!
Gee, the guys in the sex crime division of the FBI must have hard drives crawling with child porn. Let's report 'em!
Hehe.I have only come across such sites a few times. I have a relative who works in it. He directs the complaints to where ever they should go. It always scared me when I came across such a site. I never knew if they were watching the ip addies of those who trafficked through those sites. I never thought about the page image being cashed. That really bites because I don't know how to shred a cashe.
viscousmemories
03-30-2005, 07:19 PM
I'm pretty sure the cops have their hands full with people actually creating and sharing (ie. uploading, emailing, and otherwise distributing) child porn without going after every person who might have clicked through a sketchy website. If you're worried though, there are programs you can install that will routinely clear your cache.
latinijral
03-31-2005, 03:15 AM
I think you might have misunderstood what the Freethought Forum is about, latinijral.
Although we have more than a few skeptics among us, we are not committed to supporting or promoting skepticism or skeptical organizations. .
Congratulations my dear lady ,I knew you can make the difference.
So I'm not sure why you are taking the same approach--attacking skepticism and skeptics--that ultimately led to your being banned at SkepticalCommunity and the Skeptic Friends Network (just last week). .
Because I am free to post whatever I want, wherever I want.
Let’s assume that “attacking” is my courage to post the lies , contradictions , double speech , mistakes , etc of the pseudo skeptics at their own “skeptics” forums.
If they had an hostile reaction as in all the true believers forums, then they helped me proving my point.
Of course you are free to post whatever you want, but if you're trolling for a hostile reaction from skeptics I think you're wasting your time here. .
I already had some hostile reactions here .Not a big deal.
But anyway , thank you my dear lady .
Remember I love you all.
If there's something more substantial you want to discuss I'm afraid I don't understand what it is. .
Yes , I will like to know your opinion if they are PRO peadophilia based in their thoughts and editorial connections.
Here is the short list, ( until now skipped to discuss about) :
The editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) is Vern Bullough.
Vern Bullough is also a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine and he is also a MEMBER OF CSICOP.
Dr Ralph Underwager , co-founder of the FMSF in the US said, in an interview of PAIDIKA, that having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will.
Here is the original interview.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nud...nderwager2.html
The FMSF advisory board members are also founders of CSICOP and the JREF.
http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html
QUOTE : “One would think that those allied with a group of falsely accused
perpetrators would distance themselves from pedophilia.”
---------------------------------------------------------
What action do you expect us to take based on this informaion?
I made a WARNING.
It is up to you what you do after that.
You are even free to send your children to them ( if you “think” they will be scientifically educated), if you still think there is not any problem at all.
But you had been warned.
How does this evidence mean to you? If you have evidence that one of the gentleman you mentioned has committed a crime--especially if he was victimizing children--then you should take this evidence to the proper authorities and get them arrested and off the streets. Otherwise, you are just blowing hot air. In which case I again ask you: What is your point?
Read the above again.
There is an evidence of pro-paedophilia actions listed before your post.
Again , you are free to do whatever you want.
viscousmemories
03-31-2005, 03:37 AM
Congratulations my dear lady ,I knew you can make the difference.
I’m not a woman.
So I'm not sure why you are taking the same approach--attacking skepticism and skeptics--that ultimately led to your being banned at SkepticalCommunity and the Skeptic Friends Network (just last week). .
Because I am free to post whatever I want, wherever I want.
No, actually because you've been banned you aren’t free to post anything at either of those forums at any time.
Let’s assume that “attacking” is my courage to post the lies , contradictions , double speech , mistakes , etc of the pseudo skeptics at their own “skeptics” forums.
If they had an hostile reaction as in all the true believers forums, then they helped me proving my point.
I’m sorry but I have no idea what you mean by that.
Yes , I will like to know your opinion if they are PRO peadophilia based in their thoughts and editorial connections.
<snip>
QUOTE : “One would think that those allied with a group of falsely accused
perpetrators would distance themselves from pedophilia.”
No, I don’t believe this information (if true) is substantial evidence of any individual or organization being pro-pedophilia.
Crumb
03-31-2005, 03:42 AM
Thanks for the 'warning' then, see ya' later. :shrug:
latinijral
03-31-2005, 04:57 AM
I'll admit, I'm halfway afraid to click on any links provided by latinijral out of fear they link to child porn sites.
Then all your previous arguments about the evidence you need were off base.
Even this last one you made.
Unless the administrators of this forum consent here to post links to child porn sites and they decided to keep yourself with the mistery and myself imside.
Or if you are brave enough to declare if I ever linked you or anyone to a child porn site.
Or if you are still afraid to face the facts showed in the links I posted.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the 'warning' then, see ya' later.
You are welcome.
See ya’.
------------------------------------------------------
I’m not a woman. .
Do you prefer if I consider you as a man?
No, I don’t believe this information (if true) is substantial evidence of any individual or organization being pro-pedophilia.
Thank you for your particular opinion.
What will you consider a substancial evidence of being pro-pedophilia ?
Not even to be a board member of Paidika, the Dutch pro -paedophile magazine, like Vern Bullough?
Brimshack
03-31-2005, 05:09 AM
Hey Latin,
I'm just wondering, would you happen to know the name of the editor of the Human Sexuality section of Prmethius books?
And could you tell me if he is in any way connected to a Dutch pedophile magazine?
...Just wondering.
viscousmemories
03-31-2005, 05:28 AM
Do you prefer if I consider you as a man?
Yes, I prefer not to be addressed as a woman.
No, I don’t believe this information (if true) is substantial evidence of any individual or organization being pro-pedophilia.Thank you for your particular opinion.
You're welcome.
What will you consider a substancial evidence of being pro-pedophilia ?
Not even to be a board member of Paidika, the Dutch pro -paedophile magazine, like Vern Bullough?
I am not familiar with any pro-pedophilia magazines or their board members, and I have never heard the name Vern Bullough before. However, if what you say is true I would agree that if there is someone named Vern Bullough who is a board member of a Dutch pro-pedophilia magazine, then it would be reasonable to suspect that he is pro-pedophilia. However, that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the stance of any other people or organizations Mr. Bullough might be affiliated with.
I'm pretty sure the cops have their hands full with people actually creating and sharing (ie. uploading, emailing, and otherwise distributing) child porn without going after every person who might have clicked through a sketchy website. If you're worried though, there are programs you can install that will routinely clear your cache.
From what I understand, everything that shows up on your hard drive can be recovered, unless it is shredded. I can restore my system back to a certain day and recover any photo, any program that I had deleted after that day without shredding. Even my cashe is restored. Anyhoo, I am not into this stuff, but it is scary that even innocent people can get in trouble for possessing images on their computers, even if they are unaware of it.
I am against child porn totally, against people looking at it and possessing it because I know the pain that is behind those images, but I don't like the idea that having a single image on one's computer, can get them in trouble.
I think I may need to reread this thread because none of the stuff the OP is talking about is making much sense to me.
viscousmemories
03-31-2005, 02:38 PM
From what I understand, everything that shows up on your hard drive can be recovered, unless it is shredded. I can restore my system back to a certain day and recover any photo, any program that I had deleted after that day without shredding. Even my cashe is restored.
There's a degree of truth to that, but most good privacy programs do 'shred' the data when they clear the cache. I seem to remember MSIE having settings to enable you to clear all your history and cache every time you exit, but I'm not using it anymore. Firefox has the ability built in to the as yet unreleased version, but it's not available yet and I'm not sure how thorough the removal is.
Anyhoo, I am not into this stuff, but it is scary that even innocent people can get in trouble for possessing images on their computers, even if they are unaware of it.
I am against child porn totally, against people looking at it and possessing it because I know the pain that is behind those images, but I don't like the idea that having a single image on one's computer, can get them in trouble.
I didn't suspect you were a big fan of child porn, but I still doubt very highly that innocent people get in trouble for possession of it. Like I said I'm sure the cops spend their time going after the people making and distributing it, and I don't think they're going to start doing door-to-door checks of people's computers, at least until after Patriot II is passed. Besides, they know how spam and caching works too, so I highly doubt they'd seek to prosecute someone for having illegal images in their browser cache.
viscousmemories
03-31-2005, 02:38 PM
I think I may need to reread this thread because none of the stuff the OP is talking about is making much sense to me.
I don't think it's you.
reprise
03-31-2005, 06:42 PM
Do you prefer if I consider you as a man?
Yes, I prefer not to be addressed as a woman.
You're no fun. :yup:
latin, why don't you go play over at The Proving. That's where all the other Benneth groupies hang out and endlessly discuss their "proof" that Randi is a paedophile.
Clutch Munny
03-31-2005, 07:28 PM
Didja ever read a thread and suddenly, inexplicably, you were struck with the thought that:
The editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) is Vern Bullough.
Vern Bullough is also a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine and he is also a MEMBER OF CSICOP.
Dr Ralph Underwager , co-founder of the FMSF in the US said, in an interview of PAIDIKA, that having sex with children could be seen as part of God's will.
Here is the original interview.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nud...nderwager2.html
The FMSF advisory board members are also founders of CSICOP and the JREF.
http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html
... and you couldn't quite say why?
Crumb
03-31-2005, 07:39 PM
All. The. Time.
Dingfod
04-01-2005, 12:43 AM
I'll admit, I'm halfway afraid to click on any links provided by latinijral out of fear they link to child porn sites.
Then all your previous arguments about the evidence you need were off base.
Even this last one you made.
Unless the administrators of this forum consent here to post links to child porn sites and they decided to keep yourself with the mistery and myself imside.
Or if you are brave enough to declare if I ever linked you or anyone to a child porn site.
Or if you are still afraid to face the facts showed in the links I posted.
------------------------------------------------
I'm not the one acting like Chicken Little. He probably ran around repeating "The sky is falling." more times than you have "Some leading skeptics are pediphiles.", but it didn't make it any more factual.
LadyShea
04-01-2005, 01:16 AM
What is FMSF?
viscousmemories
04-01-2005, 01:36 AM
What is FMSF?
FMSF = The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (http://www.fmsfonline.org/about.html)
What are the goals of the FMS Foundation?
* to seek the reasons for the spread of FMS that is so devastating families,
* to work for ways to prevent it,
* to aid those who were affected by it and to bring their families into reconciliation.
LadyShea
04-01-2005, 01:39 AM
Okay, so the gist of this thread is...what? I am totally lost.
Somebody who knows somebody might have made some pedophilia sounding remarks at some point in time? Is that it? Six Degrees of Pedophilia?
viscousmemories
04-01-2005, 01:42 AM
Okay, so the gist of this thread is...what? I am totally lost.
Somebody who knows somebody might have made some pedophilia sounding remarks at some point in time? Is that it? Six Degrees of Pedophilia?
:chuckle:
I'm guessing it's either that or a simple exposition of the fact that some people are part of different organizations.
John Carter
04-01-2005, 04:08 AM
As far as I can tell, that's about it, LadyShea. Or as it is more commonly known, guilt by association. IOW, two people who may indeed be pedophiles, or at the very least pro-pedophilia, are on some boards or otherwise associated with some skeptics, therefore skeptics are pedophiles. Not very convincing, is it?
latinijral
04-01-2005, 04:27 AM
I am not familiar with any pro-pedophilia magazines or their board members, and I have never heard the name Vern Bullough before. However, if what you say is true I would agree that if there is someone named Vern Bullough who is a board member of a Dutch pro-pedophilia magazine, then it would be reasonable to suspect that he is pro-pedophilia.
Are you showing a kind of regret to your previous post? : “ No, I don’t believe this information (if true) is substantial evidence of any individual or organization being pro-pedophilia.” ------------------- > “it would be reasonable to suspect that he is pro-pedophilia.”
However, that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the stance of any other people or organizations Mr. Bullough might be affiliated with.
Mr .Bullough ( a CSICOP member) is also the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) .
Nothing reasonable to suspect if the editor is pro-pedophilia?
-------------------------------------------------------
latin, why don't you go play over at The Proving. That's where all the other Benneth groupies hang out and endlessly discuss their "proof" that Randi is a paedophile.
Do you have any proof that I accused Mr. Randi of being a paedophile?
Do you consider yourself a groupie for posting where you consider people agree with your particular beliefs?
It is most productive to make the groupies think about their mistakes in their own territory.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hehe.I have only come across such sites a few times. I have a relative who works in it. He directs the complaints to where ever they should go. It always scared me when I came across such a site. I never knew if they were watching the ip addies of those who trafficked through those sites. I never thought about the page image being cashed. That really bites because I don't know how to shred a cashe.
Dear lady :
I understand your “paranoid” ( maybe “concern” is more appropriated ) inducted by Warrenly’s fear about the links.
But you had received advice of how to clean your hard disk .
Maybe you should report this thread with your “confession” to the same guy you did before.
Maybe it is already reported. . Who knows?
But you are clean……right?
viscousmemories
04-01-2005, 04:50 AM
I am not familiar with any pro-pedophilia magazines or their board members, and I have never heard the name Vern Bullough before. However, if what you say is true I would agree that if there is someone named Vern Bullough who is a board member of a Dutch pro-pedophilia magazine, then it would be reasonable to suspect that he is pro-pedophilia.
Are you showing a kind of regret to your previous post? : “ No, I don’t believe this information (if true) is substantial evidence of any individual or organization being pro-pedophilia.” ------------------- > “it would be reasonable to suspect that he is pro-pedophilia.”
No, I don't regret what I said at all. So far the only evidence I have that any of the information in this thread is true is your personal testimony and a couple of websites, which I maintain is not substantial evidence of any individual or organization being pro-pedophilia. The only thing I have conceded is that it's reasonable to infer that a board member of a pro-pedophilia magazine is pro-pedophilia. But you haven't even proved that much.
However, that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the stance of any other people or organizations Mr. Bullough might be affiliated with.
Mr .Bullough ( a CSICOP member) is also the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) .
Nothing reasonable to suspect if the editor is pro-pedophilia?
Nope, not necessarily. Are you alleging that Prometheus Books publishes books that are pro-pedophilia or that CSICOP condones pedophilia? If so, what evidence do you have besides your allegations about the sexual proclivities of Vern Bullough? If not, I can't imagine what your point is.
Hehe.I have only come across such sites a few times. I have a relative who works in it. He directs the complaints to where ever they should go. It always scared me when I came across such a site. I never knew if they were watching the ip addies of those who trafficked through those sites. I never thought about the page image being cashed. That really bites because I don't know how to shred a cashe.
Dear lady :
I understand your “paranoid” ( maybe “concern” is more appropriated ) inducted by Warrenly’s fear about the links.
But you had received advice of how to clean your hard disk .
Maybe you should report this thread with your “confession” to the same guy you did before.
Maybe it is already reported. . Who knows?
But you are clean……right? Dear bub,
Don't try to imply anything at all. First off, please try to get a better grasp of communication skills because it is difficult to understand you. This said, I understood the last bit clearly. My "confession"? What confession did I make to anyone? I reported sites after my enraged horror at finding them. The reason why I know about shredding is because I know a little about the Windows filing system and know that there were programs that would overwrite the files in a way that the original data could not be recovered not because I was 'advised'.
I have no desire to report this thread to my kin. He would get rather pissed that I wasted his time on such a stupid and incoherrant thing.
I don't think I'm paranoid, either. I have been taught to be cautious about things that could restrict one's freedoms by those in power to restrict freedoms.
Why would you ask if I was clean? What a hoot! Why don't you go over my posting history to see how friendly I am to guys who like kids in a bad way.
Ensign Steve
04-01-2005, 06:29 AM
However, that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the stance of any other people or organizations Mr. Bullough might be affiliated with.
Mr .Bullough ( a CSICOP member) is also the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) .
Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
latinijral
04-01-2005, 12:06 PM
However, that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the stance of any other people or organizations Mr. Bullough might be affiliated with.
Mr .Bullough ( a CSICOP member) is also the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) .
Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
If you read again my OP , you will find it. It is not edited.
LadyShea
04-01-2005, 03:11 PM
However, that doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the stance of any other people or organizations Mr. Bullough might be affiliated with.
Mr .Bullough ( a CSICOP member) is also the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ) .
Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
If you read again my OP , you will find it. It is not edited.
I think that was facetious, you have copied and pasted it a thousand times. I think what we would all like is for you to elaborate on how your little factoids should be addressed by the members of this board. Just what the hell is your point?
livius drusus
04-01-2005, 03:15 PM
Dear bub
:hysteric:
Crumb
04-01-2005, 05:17 PM
Just what the hell is your point?
Wow, what a great question. Too bad it won't be answered. :rolleye1:
Dingfod
04-01-2005, 09:02 PM
This Vern Bullough? (http://uscnurse.usc.edu/faculty/vern.htm)
This Vern Bullough (http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/index.html)
Or, this well-published Vern Bullough (http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/publications/articles.html)?
OMG, he wrote about gay activism too! (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_41/ai_n9488298) And cross-dressing. (http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/genderblend.htm)
It gets better, he cowrote Contraception (http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/contrace.htm) with his wife Bonnie. I sure hope they practiced what they preached and didn't have any children for him to be close to.
Even worse, co-wrote The Complete Guide to Fertility and Family Planning with a woman who was not his wife, Dr. Sarah Freeman. *gasp* You don't suppose she's a pediphile too, do you? :eek:
I've looked through all these titles in Prometheus Book's Human Sexuality section (http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/hs.htm) and I don't seem to see any at all that seem to be promoting pediphilia. What are they trying to hide?
And as for Ralph Underwager's view (http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/wwwboard/messages/1986.html) that pediphilia is god's will, there are a lot of people in the world that hold the view that everything that happens is god's will. Who are you to circumvent god's will?
Ensign Steve
04-01-2005, 09:17 PM
I think that was facetious
Shhhh!!! You'll blow my cover! :spy:
latinijral
04-02-2005, 03:05 AM
Dear bub,
Don't try to imply anything at all. First off, please try to get a better grasp of communication skills because it is difficult to understand you. This said, I understood the last bit clearly.
I am happy you understood the last bit ( my post to you) clearly.
Sometimes it is a matter of what you really want to understand.
Help me with my communications skills, please tell me what “bub” means.
I guess was your reaction………. because I called you “ my dear lady” ?
As I wrote in my OP : Sorry for my English. It is not my first language , not even the second one.
My "confession"? What confession did I make to anyone? I reported sites after my enraged horror at finding them. The reason why I know about shredding is because I know a little about the Windows filing system and know that there were programs that would overwrite the files in a way that the original data could not be recovered not because I was 'advised'.
I f you read again the word “confession” , you will notice it was quoted. I also wrote that maybe “concern” could be more appropriated.
Perhaps it is a better word to describe all the things you shared here?, about your hard disk “registered” with child porn sites because of some “accidental” mistakes you did?
I have no desire to report this thread to my kin. He would get rather pissed that I wasted his time on such a stupid and incoherrant thing.
Then you must be sure you didn’t waste HIS time when you did it before.
Perhaps someone did it for you now. Perhaps you will never know..
I don't think I'm paranoid, either. I have been taught to be cautious about things that could restrict one's freedoms by those in power to restrict freedoms.
Then you must be relax and without any fear at all.
But IMO you showed your paranoid/concern when you wrote about the subject.
I respect yours.
Why would you ask if I was clean? What a hoot! Why don't you go over my posting history to see how friendly I am to guys who like kids in a bad way.
Relax my dear lady.
Well, by “clean” I was referring to YOUR computer. It is YOUR computer…..right ?
You were the one who was sharing here about your concerns and “reasons” for having registered child porn sites on your hard drive: ”I've come across those sites………” “Hehe.I have only come across such sites a few times”.
You were the one who received advice of how to clean your cache. : “If you're worried though, there are programs you can install that will routinely clear your cache.”
You were the one who still think your cache can be restored even if you follow the previous advice: ”From what I understand, everything that shows up on your hard drive can be recovered………….”,
You were the one who showed your scary attitude for the possibility to get in trouble for having those child porn sites/images on your hard drive ( after coming across those sites) : “ it is scary that even innocent people can get in trouble for possessing images on their computers, even if they are unaware of it.”
Then………..it is YOUR computer “clean” now?
I trust your innocence /ingenuousness.
But I am not the jury or your judge………… I am not even judging you.
You must know or learn also, that every time YOU joined those child porn sites , THEY automatically registered your IP.
That is the way the INTERNET works.
I am not trying to scare you more than you are now , I am just responding to your previous confusion.
latinijral
04-02-2005, 04:14 AM
This Vern Bullough? (http://uscnurse.usc.edu/faculty/vern.htm)
This Vern Bullough (http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/index.html)
Or, this well-published Vern Bullough (http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/publications/articles.html)?
OMG, he wrote about gay activism too! (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_41/ai_n9488298) And cross-dressing. (http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/genderblend.htm)
It gets better, he cowrote Contraception (http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/contrace.htm) with his wife Bonnie. I sure hope they practiced what they preached and didn't have any children for him to be close to.
Even worse, co-wrote The Complete Guide to Fertility and Family Planning with a woman who was not his wife, Dr. Sarah Freeman. *gasp* You don't suppose she's a pediphile too, do you? :eek:
No one of the above.
You know I am talking about this Vern Bullough:
The founder of CSUN's Center for Sex Research and the sex guru emeritus at the conference was Dr. Vern L. Bullough, a self-admitted pedophile and an editor of the Journal of Pedophilia. Bullough wrote the introduction to the pedophile handbook Loving Boys: A Multidisciplinary Study in Two Volumes of Sexual Relations Between Adults and Minor Males, by the Dutch pedophile and former "jurist" Dr. Edward Brongersma.
http://www.lukeford.com/archives/updates/980806a.htm
Remember he was also a CSICOP member and the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz chairman of CSICOP ).
John Carter
04-02-2005, 04:38 AM
latinijral, your last post to Beth was one of the slimiest and most disgusting collections of innuendo I have ever had the misfortune to read. With that post, you have completely destroyed any hope of me paying any attention to anything you have to say about anyone.
Ensign Steve
04-02-2005, 04:55 AM
My mom graduated from CSUN! :eek: That's only one degree of separation (well, two if you count the school). Oh, well, I'm sure I'd remember anything weird from my childhood. Unless I repressed it.
beyelzu
04-02-2005, 04:58 AM
Dear bub,
Don't try to imply anything at all. First off, please try to get a better grasp of communication skills because it is difficult to understand you. This said, I understood the last bit clearly.
I am happy you understood the last bit ( my post to you) clearly.
Sometimes it is a matter of what you really want to understand.
Help me with my communications skills, please tell me what “bub” means.
I guess was your reaction………. because I called you “ my dear lady” ?
As I wrote in my OP : Sorry for my English. It is not my first language , not even the second one.
My "confession"? What confession did I make to anyone? I reported sites after my enraged horror at finding them. The reason why I know about shredding is because I know a little about the Windows filing system and know that there were programs that would overwrite the files in a way that the original data could not be recovered not because I was 'advised'.
I f you read again the word “confession” , you will notice it was quoted. I also wrote that maybe “concern” could be more appropriated.
Perhaps it is a better word to describe all the things you shared here?, about your hard disk “registered” with child porn sites because of some “accidental” mistakes you did?
I have no desire to report this thread to my kin. He would get rather pissed that I wasted his time on such a stupid and incoherrant thing.
Then you must be sure you didn’t waste HIS time when you did it before.
Perhaps someone did it for you now. Perhaps you will never know..
I don't think I'm paranoid, either. I have been taught to be cautious about things that could restrict one's freedoms by those in power to restrict freedoms.
Then you must be relax and without any fear at all.
But IMO you showed your paranoid/concern when you wrote about the subject.
I respect yours.
Why would you ask if I was clean? What a hoot! Why don't you go over my posting history to see how friendly I am to guys who like kids in a bad way.
Relax my dear lady.
Well, by “clean” I was referring to YOUR computer. It is YOUR computer…..right ?
You were the one who was sharing here about your concerns and “reasons” for having registered child porn sites on your hard drive: ”I've come across those sites………” “Hehe.I have only come across such sites a few times”.
You were the one who received advice of how to clean your cache. : “If you're worried though, there are programs you can install that will routinely clear your cache.”
You were the one who still think your cache can be restored even if you follow the previous advice: ”From what I understand, everything that shows up on your hard drive can be recovered………….”,
You were the one who showed your scary attitude for the possibility to get in trouble for having those child porn sites/images on your hard drive ( after coming across those sites) : “ it is scary that even innocent people can get in trouble for possessing images on their computers, even if they are unaware of it.”
Then………..it is YOUR computer “clean” now?
I trust your innocence /ingenuousness.
But I am not the jury or your judge………… I am not even judging you.
You must know or learn also, that every time YOU joined those child porn sites , THEY automatically registered your IP.
That is the way the INTERNET works.
I am not trying to scare you more than you are now , I am just responding to your previous confusion.
you are a shady cunt.
I will respond to every single post of yours that I see with the message that you are a shady cunt.
viscousmemories
04-02-2005, 05:20 AM
Oddly enough, I thought his last post was the first one where he wasn't implying anything nefarious. :chin:
livius drusus
04-02-2005, 05:27 AM
I agree with vm. I think latin was trying to explain that his earlier response was an attempt to address Beth's concerns about potentially having illegal material on her hard drive just from casual surfing. I suspect the shadiness in that post is mainly a language difficulty thing.
Not that that deshadifies the rest of his posts on this thread, mind you, but I'm pretty sure he's not trying to imply anything nasty about Beth.
you are a shady cunt.
I will respond to every single post of yours that I see with the message that you are a shady cunt.
Now you guys are catching on. latin is worthy of nothing more than derision and ridicule. Nothing in the nearly 3 years that I have been dealing with latin leads me to any other conclusion.
John Carter
04-02-2005, 05:50 AM
Maybe, liv. I'm not convinced, however. There's just too much of it.
about your hard disk “registered” with child porn sites because of some “accidental” mistakes you did?
You were the one who was sharing here about your concerns and “reasons” for having registered child porn sites on your hard drive
Well, by “clean” I was referring to YOUR computer. It is YOUR computer…..right ?
I trust your innocence /ingenuousness.
These are just the most egregious comments in his post. The judicious use of quotation marks around certain words, and the overall tone... well, it reeks.
I could be wrong - I often am - but that's how it reads to me.
Ensign Steve
04-02-2005, 06:41 AM
Try making the "air-quotes" with your fingers while you read it. I had to take a shower afterward.
Dingfod
04-02-2005, 01:17 PM
I think latin fails to understand the difference between writing about a subject and advocating it.
livius drusus
04-02-2005, 01:20 PM
You may well be right about that JC and JD. The quotes are pretty damn shady.
[QUOTE=BETH]
Perhaps it is a better word to describe all the things you shared here?, about your hard disk “registered” with child porn sites because of some “accidental” mistakes you did? They weren't accidental mistakes. Posters in other boards would post a link to some site, I would click, and then it would take me to such a site. The poster of such links did so in order to get cheap thrills at the outrage , attention, and victimization they may cause a person that had the misfortune to click the link were taken to such a site.
I was also emailed a link to such pictures by a really kind stalker-type because they resembled me so much as a child.
Then you must be sure you didn’t waste HIS time when you did it before.
Perhaps someone did it for you now. Perhaps you will never know.. I didn't waste his time before, but I know that notifying him of this thread would.
Then you must be relax and without any fear at all.
But IMO you showed your paranoid/concern when you wrote about the subject. I don't think I showed paranoia at all. I think I had legit concern.
I respect yours.
I don't understand yours.
Relax my dear lady.
Well, by “clean” I was referring to YOUR computer. It is YOUR computer…..right ?
You did it again, you slimy bugger. You are not referring to my computer, you are making veiled insinuations.
You were the one who was sharing here about your concerns and “reasons” for having registered child porn sites on your hard drive: ”I've come across those sites………” “Hehe.I have only come across such sites a few times”. It was because Warren mentioned being fearful of clicking your links. It brought up the memory of the times I had clicked a link to a child porn site. I voiced a concern about what happens if we do innocently go to such a site.
You were the one who received advice of how to clean your cache. : “If you're worried though, there are programs you can install that will routinely clear your cache.”
I already clean my cashe after every use, not because I look at nefarious pictures but out of privacy. But oh shit, I simply must be doing something really bad to want privacy.
You were the one who still think your cache can be restored even if you follow the previous advice: ”From what I understand, everything that shows up on your hard drive can be recovered………….”,That is because my cashe can be restored. I have restored my cashe several times lately because my system has been amuck after installing a certain program. My cashe is restored to the time and date that I restored my system to.
[quote]
You were the one who showed your scary attitude for the possibility to get in trouble for having those child porn sites/images on your hard drive ( after coming across those sites) : “ it is scary that even innocent people can get in trouble for possessing images on their computers, even if they are unaware of it.”
I did not show a scary attitude. I voiced a concern. I quite frankly voiced a concern about something and my concern should not have warranted insinuations by you. It is a scary thought that every thing done on a computer can be found. This from personal journals to financial records.
Then………..it is YOUR computer “clean” now?
Bite me.
I trust your innocence /ingenuousness.
But I am not the jury or your judge………… I am not even judging you.
You must know or learn also, that every time YOU joined those child porn sites , THEY automatically registered your IP. I did not "join" those sites. I don't understand why you keep saying that. The links provided were links that took a person directly into a site. I would say that you are in fact judging me. Not only this, you are doing something worse by implying certain things about me. You are implying things about me that quite frankly make me ill.
I am not trying to scare you more than you are now , I am just responding to your previous confusion.
I am not scared at all. Saying something is scary does not mean I am scared, nor does it mean that I am frightened. Nor am I confused. Not about the cashe issue, nor am I confused about reading the underlying meaning of your posts to me.
latinijral
04-02-2005, 07:46 PM
They weren't accidental mistakes. Posters in other boards would post a link to some site, I would click, and then it would take me to such a site. The poster of such links did so in order to get cheap thrills at the outrage , attention, and victimization they may cause a person that had the misfortune to click the link were taken to such a site.
I was also emailed a link to such pictures by a really kind stalker-type because they resembled me so much as a child.
Linius Drusus interpretated your previous concern as you were doing casual surfing :: “I think latin was trying to explain that his earlier response was an attempt to address Beth's concerns about potentially having illegal material on her hard drive just from casual surfing.”
.
But now you are being more specific in your reasons/excuses why your hard drive registered those child porn sites/pictures..
I hope you still have all that evidence that support your previous statement. Just in case someone reported this thread.
I didn't waste his time before, but I know that notifying him of this thread would.
How do you know you didn’t waste his time? Until now, you never refered/shared that you received a response from him.
I don't think I showed paranoia at all. I think I had legit concern.
I also told you that : ” I understand your “paranoid” ( maybe “concern” is more appropriated ) inducted by Warrenly’s fear about the links”
.Warrently’s innuendo gave you the chance to talk about your experience.
I don't understand yours.
I think you wrote you did so : “This said, I understood the last bit clearly.”
You did it again, you slimy bugger. You are not referring to my computer, you are making veiled insinuations.
“bub”-----“slimy bugger” . Your English is educational ?
Why do you think I am not referring to your computer when I wrote this : ” Well, by “clean” I was referring to YOUR computer. It is YOUR computer…..right ?”
Educate me , what words can I use instead of my previous quote so you can trust me I DID was referring to your computer.
It was because Warren mentioned being fearful of clicking your links. It brought up the memory of the times I had clicked a link to a child porn site. I voiced a concern about what happens if we do innocently go to such a site.
Until now Warren just showed his REAL innuendo skills when he wrote that.
Warren’s innuendo don’t have any basis .Not even a support.
The administrators of this forum never wrote about being child porn sites.
But I also understand Warren. He is afraid of the evidence he asked.
So my dear lady , be free to open it , if you want . You have the chance to report them , to the same guy you did before , if you find something dark …again.
I already clean my cashe after every use, not because I look at nefarious pictures but out of privacy. But oh shit, I simply must be doing something really bad to want privacy.
Remember what I told you , your IP is still registered on those child porn sites.
That is how the INTERNET works.
I did not show a scary attitude. I voiced a concern. I quite frankly voiced a concern about something and my concern should not have warranted insinuations by you. It is a scary thought that every thing done on a computer can be found. This from personal journals to financial records.
I understand your concern.
Bite me.
If you say that to a latin man/woman , be sure you can be missinterpretated. It is like a kind of sexual insinuation……………..( muérdeme ……mamita/papito)
Educate me.
I did not "join" those sites. I don't understand why you keep saying that. The links provided were links that took a person directly into a site. I would say that you are in fact judging me. Not only this, you are doing something worse by implying certainthings about me. You are implying things about me that quite frankly make me ill.
Relax my dear lady. I am not implying things. I am not judging you.
Every time you click a link you join a site.
Why don’t you share what board were you lurking/posting when that experience happened to you? Did you also report to the FBI the board and the guy? The guy was banned/sued from the board?
You will help us with your details.
I am not scared at all. Saying something is scary does not mean I am scared, nor does it mean that I am frightened. Nor am I confused. Not about the cashe issue, nor am I confused about reading the underlying meaning of your posts to me.
What kind of underlying meaning I did to you?
Crumb
04-02-2005, 07:58 PM
Every time you click a link you join a site.
Well no. I am not sure why you continue to use words like "join" and "register". Your continued use of them leads me to believe that you are insinuating that Beth actively sought membership on websites that promote/dispense child pornography. From her postings this is obviously NOT the case. She was fooled into clicking on links that put some offensive crap in her cache. She reported the sites and wants to be sure the crap is thoroughly cleaned off her hard drive. I understand her position completely.
Luckily, I have not encountered such pictures while surfing the net. I have found sites with pictures that I do not want to see before. So it is completely clear to me how she could accidentally encounter such things.
She has explained this thoroughly and yet you don't seem to get it. I understand there is somewhat of a language barrier, but I think you are using it as a smoke screen to make some posters here look bad with your insinuations. Either you are thick as a brick or you are trully a slimeball.
Major Atheist
04-02-2005, 08:57 PM
GOLIATH:
I seriously enjoyed your sarcastic post. :wink:
Major Atheist
latinijral
04-02-2005, 09:02 PM
Well no. I am not sure why you continue to use words like "join" and "register". Your continued use of them leads me to believe that you are insinuating that Beth actively sought membership on websites that promote/dispense child pornography.
I am not insinuating what you think. There are proper authorities that can judge that.
You just said “well NO” but you don’t give me(educate me) another word to use instead of “join” .
I wrote : “Every time you click a link you join a site.”
The synonymous are : join/link/connect/stick together/bond/adhere …etc,
About my use of “register” . When BETH clicked those links , those child porn sites were registered in her computer/hard drive.
Those child porn sites also registered Beth’s I.P. on their page/site.
What part do you think is still confusing for you?
Show me other words to use instead of “join” and “register”. It would not change the point.
From her postings this is obviously NOT the case. She was fooled into clicking on links that put some offensive crap in her cache. She reported the sites and wants to be sure the crap is thoroughly cleaned off her hard drive. I understand her position completely.
She was more explicit in her last post:
Some links from a poster on an unknown board and also an email she received.
I am asking her , for the benefit of all the lurkers and posters , to share in which board she had that experience. Is that incorrect to ask?
It must be on the records of that board.
She must reported the board , the poster , and not only the URLs of the child porn sites to the guy of the FBI as she wrote before.
Luckily, I have not encountered such pictures while surfing the net. I have found sites with pictures that I do not want to see before. So it is completely clear to me how she could accidentally encounter such things.
You are a lucky man.
She has explained this thoroughly and yet you don't seem to get it. I understand there is somewhat of a language barrier, but I think you are using it as a smoke screen to make some posters here look bad with your insinuations. Either you are thick as a brick or you are trully a slimeball.
If you try to look bad and hostile to me , then you have a particular problem.
Crumb
04-02-2005, 09:21 PM
What part do you think is still confusing for you?
Show me other words to use instead of “join” and “register”. It would not change the point.
Well, if this is trully a language barrier problem then I apologize. I am really not sure at this point. Let me elaborate.
Join can mean the same thing as link, but not in this context: "you join a site". When said this way it implies enlisting in membership list, like you did when you got the name "latinijral" so that you could post on this site. If you hadn't joined you would not be able to post, just read. What Beth did was accidentally visit (read, view, look at, click on, etc ...) a page and therefor images from the site were downloaded (saved to, put on, cached on (not registered)) her hard drive.
She did not sign up for anything. Using the words "join" and "registered" makes it sound as if she was applying for membership, like you do when you get a name to post on a forum.
I hope this helps you understand.
Ensign Steve
04-02-2005, 09:26 PM
latin's us of the word "register" is correct, as far as the technicality of our IP addresses being registered at all the sites we visit. (AFAIK) Anyone who clicks on FF and then says "oh this isn't what I wanted so I won't type in my username and join this site" has still had their IP address registered on the site.
non?
Crumb
04-02-2005, 09:33 PM
Yes, I agree JD. This is a correct use of register: "Those child porn sites also registered Beth’s I.P. on their page/site."
This is the one I don't like: "those child porn sites were registered in her computer/hard drive."
Linius Drusus interpretated your previous concern as you were doing casual surfing :: “I think latin was trying to explain that his earlier response was an attempt to address Beth's concerns about potentially having illegal material on her hard drive just from casual surfing.” Even her statement does not mean that she thought I sought out these sites in casual surfing.
But now you are being more specific in your reasons/excuses why your hard drive registered those child porn sites/pictures..
I hope you still have all that evidence that support your previous statement. Just in case someone reported this thread. First of all, it came up because Warren stated he was concerned about clicking your link. That brought up my question. I don't need proof to back my claim. I could care less if anyone has reported this thread. There is absolutely nothing I have ever posted in any forum that even remotely suggests that I seek out child porn or am attracted to children in a sexual manner. You making this suggestion seems to me that you are suggesting that I am, in fact, a pedophile.
How do you know you didn’t waste his time? Until now, you never refered/shared that you received a response from him. It is a fucking relative, buddy. That alone would suggest that I did receive some sort of correspondence. Second, it is none of your business what the replies were. You know, now I am not so sure, I may show him this thread so he can get a big laugh at this idiocy of your claims.
I also told you that : ” I understand your “paranoid” ( maybe “concern” is more appropriated ) inducted by Warrenly’s fear about the links”
.Warrently’s innuendo gave you the chance to talk about your experience. You are continuing to refer to it as paranoia. You are intentionally making insinuations.
I think you wrote you did so : “This said, I understood the last bit clearly.”
I understand exactly the veiled insinuations you are making against me. I have not a clue what the whole point of the bullshit drivel you are making in your other posts against the people associated with Randi.
“bub” And unflattering reply to your condescending "Dear Lady"
-----“slimy bugger” .
The wet slimy thing I used to see boys pick out of their noses and place in their mouths with their fingers.
Your English is educational ? Most definitely.It is my native language and I am very good at American colloquials and euphemisms.
If you say that to a latin man/woman , be sure you can be missinterpretated. It is like a kind of sexual insinuation……………..( muérdeme ……mamita/papito)
Educate me. I hope this educates you. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bite+me&r=d) Think of my statement as the evolved definition.
Relax my dear lady. I am not implying things. I am not judging you.
Every time you click a link you join a site.
Why don’t you share what board were you lurking/posting when that experience happened to you? Did you also report to the FBI the board and the guy? The guy was banned/sued from the board?
You will help us with your details. I did not join a site. In order to join a site, I must register with it. It appears to me that you are in fact insinuating that I am guilty of something that you claim I am not. The boards that I am speaking of have either removed links or banned the user. The boards were not guilty of allowing the link to remain. I reported guilty parties as well, especially in the case of my nice little email. Another time I asked for an opinion about an image in wikipedia in the Lolicon entry. I removed the image, someone reverted, citing it was not defined as child porn under US statutes. I asked for his opinion on it to see if I had an argument in making a edit war and petitioning to get the image removed.
What kind of underlying meaning I did to you?
You gave an impression that you were implying that I actively sought out such sites. Perhaps it is the language barrier. If it is, perhaps you should be more careful in how you word things.
Well, I just read the other posts since latinijral's post directed at me. Perhaps it is just a language problem. Are you using babelfish to translate?
Dingfod
04-02-2005, 10:32 PM
Happen across a site : Join :: Write about pediphiles : Advocate pediphilia
latinijral
04-02-2005, 10:52 PM
Well, if this is trully a language barrier problem then I apologize. I am really not sure at this point.
Apology accepted.
Let me elaborate.
Join can mean the same thing as link, but not in this context: "you join a site". When said this way it implies enlisting in membership list, like you did when you got the name "latinijral" so that you could post on this site. If you hadn't joined you would not be able to post, just read. What Beth did was accidentally visit (read, view, look at, click on, etc ...) a page and therefor images from the site were downloaded (saved to, put on, cached on (not registered)) her hard drive. .
Elaborate this please : SITE is ONLY a place where it implies enlisting/join in membership list as a choice ? YES or NO
Are there SITES that DON’T have the enlisting membership choice? If the answer is YES, If you click them , are you “joining” them?
ALL child porn sites are with the membership choice? If the answer is NO, if you click the link , are you “joining” the site?
From any kind of site , there is a possibility to just download the pictures/save the page/copy the page to your hard drive , you don’t have to be a member to do it. You just need to click the right buttom of your mouse . Of course , I am not implying she did so.
About the word “register” , I think you are playing semantics. Read what Ensigh Steve wrote about it.
She did not sign up for anything. Using the words "join" and "registered" makes it sound as if she was applying for membership, like you do when you get a name to post on a forum. .
I never implied she had a membership. How could I know?
I want to know in what board she had that fatal experience in order to prevent the lurkers and posters here.
I hope this helps you understand. .
Thank you and I hope the same to you.
latinijral
04-02-2005, 10:54 PM
Well, I just read the other posts since latinijral's post directed at me. Perhaps it is just a language problem. Are you using babelfish to translate?
No my dear lady.
English is my third language.
Crumb
04-02-2005, 10:59 PM
Elaborate this please : SITE is ONLY a place where it implies enlisting/join in membership list as a choice ? YES or NO
No. Join can be used in many ways that means to sign up for membership in something.
"Join a club."
"Join a sports team."
"Join a church."
You could even "Join a university or professional union."
Are there SITES that DON’T have the enlisting membership choice? If the answer is YES, If you click them , are you “joining” them?
Of course there are such sites, and if you visit them you are NOT joining them.
ALL child porn sites are with the membership choice? If the answer is NO, if you click the link , are you “joining” the site?
I do not really know, but there is no reason that all child porn sites would require memberships, and clicking on such sites is NOT joining them.
The word registered is the same as join in many ways. I think it even more strongly implies that one officially has singed up for something.
Apology accepted.
I hope this is a genuine language issue. I am still not sure.
I hope this is a genuine language issue. I am still not sure.Neither am I.
lisarea
04-02-2005, 11:10 PM
Elaborate this please : SITE is ONLY a place where it implies enlisting/join in membership list as a choice ? YES or NO
Are there SITES that DON’T have the enlisting membership choice? If the answer is YES, If you click them , are you “joining” them?
Are you really saying that you believe you "join" a site when you simply visit it? Do you also join a television show when you see it? Do you "join" an organization when you view a flyer they've made? Do you "join" a store when you walk into it?
The term 'join' is completely inappropriate to describe visiting a site. To join something is to become a part of it, as you would if you joined a club or a class or a program. It does not describe a casual relationship. If English is, as you claim, your third language, why are you arguing about its usage with people who understand it as their native language?
If you want to describe simply visiting a site, use the word 'visit' or 'view' or 'access.'
If you insist on using the term in the way you have been, it will be clear that the offense was intended.
Crumb
04-02-2005, 11:17 PM
Put so succinctly lisarea. Why didn't I just say that!? :doh:
lisarea
04-02-2005, 11:23 PM
Put so succinctly lisarea. Why didn't I just say that!? :doh:
You did. I just said it way slower. We crossposted, apparently, but it took me a whole ten minutes longer.
latinijral
04-02-2005, 11:41 PM
Linius Drusus interpretated your previous concern as you were doing casual surfing :: “I think latin was trying to explain that his earlier response was an attempt to address Beth's concerns about potentially having illegal material on her hard drive just from casual surfing.” Even her statement does not mean that she thought I sought out these sites in casual surfing. .
That is YOUR interpretation.
But now you are being more specific in your reasons/excuses why your hard drive registered those child porn sites/pictures..
I hope you still have all that evidence that support your previous statement. Just in case someone reported this thread. First of all, it came up because Warren stated he was concerned about clicking your link. That brought up my question. I don't need proof to back my claim. I could care less if anyone has reported this thread. There is absolutely nothing I have ever posted in any forum that even remotely suggests that I seek out child porn or am attracted to children in a sexual manner. You making this suggestion seems to me that you are suggesting that I am, in fact, a pedophile. .
If you don't need proof to back your claim , the you don't need to worry no more.
I am not suggesting you are a pedophile.
I thought you pretended to be a skeptic.
How do you know you didn’t waste his time? Until now, you never refered/shared that you received a response from him. It is a fucking relative, buddy. That alone would suggest that I did receive some sort of correspondence. Second, it is none of your business what the replies were. You know, now I am not so sure, I may show him this thread so he can get a big laugh at this idiocy of your claims..
I didn't make any claim about you. You did so.
I also told you that : ” I understand your “paranoid” ( maybe “concern” is more appropriated ) inducted by Warrenly’s fear about the links”
.Warrently’s innuendo gave you the chance to talk about your experience. You are continuing to refer to it as paranoia. You are intentionally making insinuations. .
There are not insinuations , it is my opinion.
I think you wrote you did so : “This said, I understood the last bit clearly.”
I understand exactly the veiled insinuations you are making against me. I have not a clue what the whole point of the bullshit drivel you are making in your other posts against the people associated with Randi. .
That is just your opinion.
“bub” And unflattering reply to your condescending "Dear Lady" .
Do you prefer if I not call you "dear lady"?
I am trying to be gentle with you.
-----“slimy bugger” .
The wet slimy thing I used to see boys pick out of their noses and place in their mouths with their fingers..
Just because I called you "dear lady"?
Your English is educational ? Most definitely.It is my native language and I am very good at American colloquials and euphemisms. .
I am learning from you.I like you.
If you say that to a latin man/woman , be sure you can be missinterpretated. It is like a kind of sexual insinuation……………..( muérdeme ……mamita/papito)
Educate me. I hope this educates you. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bite+me&r=d) Think of my statement as the evolved definition. .
Also think about how my latin "soul" really get it.
Relax my dear lady. I am not implying things. I am not judging you.
Every time you click a link you join a site.
Why don’t you share what board were you lurking/posting when that experience happened to you? Did you also report to the FBI the board and the guy? The guy was banned/sued from the board?
You will help us with your details. I did not join a site. In order to join a site, I must register with it. It appears to me that you are in fact insinuating that I am guilty of something that you claim I am not. The boards that I am speaking of have either removed links or banned the user. The boards were not guilty of allowing the link to remain. I reported guilty parties as well, especially in the case of my nice little email. Another time I asked for an opinion about an image in wikipedia in the Lolicon entry. I removed the image, someone reverted, citing it was not defined as child porn under US statutes. I asked for his opinion on it to see if I had an argument in making a edit war and petitioning to get the image removed. .
So we can never know what BOARDS were those? Don't you even remember their names?
What kind of underlying meaning I did to you?
You gave an impression that you were implying that I actively sought out such sites. Perhaps it is the language barrier. If it is, perhaps you should be more careful in how you word things.
No my dear lady,I was not implying those things.
Maybe my bad use of "join" instead of " visit" confused you.
My friends, latin is a master of innuendo and insinuation. He knows perfectly well what he's doing and he plays the "dumb foreigner" card when he gets backed into a corner. This is old hat [paranormal hat?], I've seen the routine dozens of times. Don't fall for it.
Crumb
04-03-2005, 12:31 AM
:noid:
That is YOUR interpretation. You are again insinuating.
If you don't need proof to back your claim , the you don't need to worry no more.
I am not suggesting you are a pedophile. I still am not so sure. I have seen some of your past interactions with people. I think you did in fact imply that I was.
I thought you pretended to be a skeptic.Again you are insinuating something about me. Why should I provide proof to verify private correspondance with anyone? Why do you still want proof to verify that I did in fact make reports or visit sites because of links that were posted in deleted threads?
I didn't make any claim about you. You did so. You insinuated about me and made claims about people associated with Randi. You cannot deny your OP.
There are not insinuations , it is my opinion. Insinuations.
That is just your opinion. Being the skeptic that I am, you did not adaquately meet the burden of proof leading me to say that you made bullshit claims. Maybe I should add slanderous to the mix?
Do you prefer if I not call you "dear lady"?
I am trying to be gentle with you. I don't think so. When combined with your reply to me, it seemed rather condescending.
Just because I called you "dear lady"? Just because you implied that I either registered, joined, or sought membership in certain sites.
I am learning from you.I like you.
Why? because you got a sufficient reaction to provide amusement?
Also think about how my latin "soul" really get it. I don't care how you really get it in your soul. If it turns you on to think I implied something sexually to you, I could care less. That is not my problem. Any worldly American person of my generation would understand I meant to fuck off or to get bent if I told the to bite me. ;)
So we can never know what BOARDS were those? Don't you even remember their names? I remember the names but I don't want you to show up there so I'll refrain from posting url's.
No my dear lady,I was not implying those things.
Maybe my bad use of "join" instead of " visit" confused you.Not so sure about that. Maybe so, but still skeptical.
Ensign Steve
04-03-2005, 01:22 AM
Happen across a site : Join :: Write about pediphiles : Advocate pediphilia
:2thumbsup:
latinijral
04-03-2005, 03:29 AM
That is YOUR interpretation. .
You are again insinuating. .
That is your interpretation.
If you don't need proof to back your claim , the you don't need to worry no more.
I am not suggesting you are a pedophile. .
I still am not so sure. I have seen some of your past interactions with people. I think you did in fact imply that I was. .
You are using a fallacy and a biased opinion
I thought you pretended to be a skeptic. .
Again you are insinuating something about me. Why should I provide proof to verify private correspondance with anyone? Why do you still want proof to verify that I did in fact make reports or visit sites because of links that were posted in deleted threads? .
I didn’t asked you any proof of your claims , you were the one who wrote you don’t need proof to back your claims.
I didn't make any claim about you. You did so. .
You insinuated about me and made claims about people associated with Randi. You cannot deny your OP. .
Insinuated what?
What claims? Be more specific.
I made a warning.
There are not insinuations , it is my opinion. .
Insinuations. .
It is your interpretation.
That is just your opinion. .
Being the skeptic that I am, you did not adaquately meet the burden of proof leading me to say that you made bullshit claims. Maybe I should add slanderous to the mix? .
It is up to you. Until now you just tried to appear like an innocent woman , no like a real skeptic.
And I like your innocent type.
Do you prefer if I not call you "dear lady"?
I am trying to be gentle with you. .
I don't think so. When combined with your reply to me, it seemed rather condescending. .
Since you are not sure at all , you are still my dear lady.
Just because I called you "dear lady"?.
Just because you implied that I either registered, joined, or sought membership in certain sites. .
I said your I.P. is registered on those child porn sites you visited.
I never wrote you sought membership in those sites.
I recognized I did a mistake for using the word “join” instead of “visit”.
I am learning from you.I like you. .
Why? because you got a sufficient reaction to provide amusement? .
Why I like you? Or why you like me?
Well, I like your innocent type.
If your avatar is showing your face , I think you are pretty.
And you are giving me your time trying to clarify this confusion.
Also think about how my latin "soul" really get it. .
I don't care how you really get it in your soul. If it turns you on to think I implied something sexually to you, I could care less. That is not my problem. Any worldly person of my generation would understand I meant to fuck off or to get bent if I told the to bite me. .
Woman , woman. When they say no …………(oops my latin soul again)…sorry.
So we can never know what BOARDS were those? Don't you even remember their names? .
I remember the names but I don't want you to show up there so I'll refrain from posting url's. .
You know why I asked you those boards. In order to help lurkers and posters to don’t suffer the same experience you said you did. If you think it is not relevant , I respect your choise.
No my dear lady,I was not implying those things.
Maybe my bad use of "join" instead of " visit" confused you. .
Not so sure about that. Maybe so, but still skeptical. .
At least you have a doubt now………………….you made my day.
Really you think you are skeptical?
latinijral
04-03-2005, 03:36 AM
sorry , I posted twice the same reply.
John Carter
04-03-2005, 03:49 AM
My friends, latin is a master of innuendo and insinuation. He knows perfectly well what he's doing and he plays the "dumb foreigner" card when he gets backed into a corner. This is old hat [paranormal hat?], I've seen the routine dozens of times. Don't fall for it.
Considering that, as lisarea mentioned, he continues to argue that his usage was harmless, I am convinced you are correct. His posts to Beth have been, and continue to be, uniformally full of insinuations and innuendo, and condescending as hell.
One telling point is that he not only uses the particular words he does, but he makes the effort to quote them. And based on an earlier post, he understands exactly what that can do to emphasis certain connotations. No, I do not at all buy the "English is my third language so any insults are not my fault" defense in this case.
latinijral
04-03-2005, 04:10 AM
Elaborate this please : SITE is ONLY a place where it implies enlisting/join in membership list as a choice ? YES or NO
Are there SITES that DON’T have the enlisting membership choice? If the answer is YES, If you click them , are you “joining” them?
Are you really saying that you believe you "join" a site when you simply visit it? Do you also join a television show when you see it? Do you "join" an organization when you view a flyer they've made? Do you "join" a store when you walk into it?
The term 'join' is completely inappropriate to describe visiting a site. To join something is to become a part of it, as you would if you joined a club or a class or a program. It does not describe a casual relationship. If English is, as you claim, your third language, why are you arguing about its usage with people who understand it as their native language?
If you want to describe simply visiting a site, use the word 'visit' or 'view' or 'access.'
If you insist on using the term in the way you have been, it will be clear that the offense was intended.
I already asked some clarifications about the word "join" a site.
I used as a synomimous as I explained before.
It is used also when you say : I am going to join with Peter at the corner. Correct m if I am wrong.
I understand now that the correct use is "visit".
I already explained that to Beth.
She never joined those sites. She just visited those child porn sites because of the reasons she exposed.
If you are trying to keep on going analyzing the word "join" it is up to you.
John Carter
04-03-2005, 04:27 AM
It is used also when you say : I am going to join with Peter at the corner. Correct m if I am wrong.
You are wrong.
The more you argue with native English speakers on this, the more your claims of innocent misunderstandings due to a language barrier look like a smoke screen.
latinijral
04-03-2005, 04:44 AM
It is used also when you say : I am going to join with Peter at the corner. Correct m if I am wrong.
You are wrong.
The more you argue with native English speakers on this, the more your claims of innocent misunderstandings due to a language barrier look like a smoke screen.
I am not arguing with you about the word "join". I just asked some clarifications.
You are the one who still is focused in that word.
I aready told Beth about my incorrect use when i wrote that she "joined " those sites.
I already told Beth that she only visited those child porn sites because of the reasons she exposed.
Goliath
04-03-2005, 06:10 AM
Randi and all skeptics are pedophiles!
Randi/Pedophile -->0 as pedophiles get larger, therefore THERE ARE INFINITELY MANY MORBIDLY OBESE SKEPTIC PEDOPHILES ALL AROUND YOU! They are dangerous because they are educated stupid
Stupid educated pedophile skeptics are not cubes (http://www.timecube.com). But time is cubic! Therefore skeptics cannot exist in time and no pedophiles exist!
LadyShea
04-03-2005, 12:15 PM
It is used also when you say : I am going to join with Peter at the corner. Correct m if I am wrong.
A native American English speaker would not use the word join in this sentence. We would say "I am going to meet Peter at the corner".
latinijral
04-03-2005, 02:04 PM
It is used also when you say : I am going to join with Peter at the corner. Correct m if I am wrong.
A native American English speaker would not use the word join in this sentence. We would say "I am going to meet Peter at the corner".
Thank you very much.
I aready told Beth about my incorrect use of the word when i wrote that she "joined those sites" .
I already told Beth that she only visited those child porn sites because of the reasons she exposed.
Ensign Steve
04-03-2005, 06:01 PM
THERE ARE INFINITELY MANY MORBIDLY OBESE SKEPTIC PEDOPHILES ALL AROUND YOU!
I'm not that fat! :sadnana:
xavierOnassis
04-03-2005, 06:22 PM
New to this board and this particular thread which caught my attention as I am a parent...
Not being familiar with any of the protagonists I limit myself to my first gut reaction which is to dismiss this entire thing as slanderous demagoguery by someone with an obvious axe to grind. :glare:
That someone should also reconsider the avatar they're using if their concern truly is... the children! :whup:
I guess even forums of, by and for people of reason and common sense aren't entirely free of the fog of demagoguery...
viscousmemories
04-03-2005, 06:30 PM
Not being familiar with any of the protagonists...
Hmm... I'm not sure I really understand who you're addressing, xavierOnassis. Only one person in this thread (that I've noticed) has been supporting the claims (vague though they are) made in the OP, and that's the guy who started the thread.
Ensign Steve
04-03-2005, 06:37 PM
Oh, I took it to mean he wasn't familiar with Randi, et al. I could be mistaken, obviously.
lisarea
04-03-2005, 07:16 PM
Not being familiar with any of the protagonists...
Hmm... I'm not sure I really understand who you're addressing, xavierOnassis. Only one person in this thread (that I've noticed) has been supporting the claims (vague though they are) made in the OP, and that's the guy who started the thread.
I assumed he was addressing the OP, and saying that, even not knowing anyone involved in the thread, that it is obvious that any accusations, real or implied, against anyone else, are specifically motivated by the fact that the OP had an axe to grind.
And yeah, xavierOnassis, all new users here get deconstructed all to hell like this. It's like hazing.
viscousmemories
04-03-2005, 07:18 PM
Oh, yeah. You're probably both right. Hmm... :chin:
livius drusus
04-03-2005, 07:36 PM
vm is just sensitive when it comes to children being in danger from an avatar.
lisarea
04-03-2005, 07:47 PM
vm is just sensitive when it comes to children being in danger from an avatar.
Perfectly understandable. That thing could put someone's eye out.
latinijral
04-03-2005, 09:20 PM
The only thing I have conceded is that it's reasonable to infer that a board member of a pro-pedophilia magazine is pro-pedophilia. But you haven't even proved that much. .
Paidika is a dutch pro paedophilia magazine.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4000&whichpage=15
Dr. Vern Bullough in his web page , in the section EMPLOYMENT AND ACTIVITIES
EDITORIAL & EDITORIAL BOARDS, says this :
http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/activities/editorial.html
( quote)
1988 - Editor, Prometheus Books, Series, New Concepts In Human Sexuality, an on going series.
1988 - Editorial Advisory Board, Psychology and Human Sexuality..
1988 - 98 - Consulting Editor, Paidika
Are you alleging that Prometheus Books publishes books that are pro-pedophilia or that CSICOP condones pedophilia? .
I am alleging that Vern Bullough ( a CSICOP member) , the consultant editor of a pro-paedophilia dutch magazine, is also the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz , chairman of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
You conceded that it's reasonable to infer that a board member of a pro-pedophilia magazine is pro-pedophilia,
Then the same pro-pedophilia man you conceded , is the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books.
In both cases the same pro-paedophilia man is still Dr. Vern Bullough.
LadyShea
04-03-2005, 09:31 PM
The only thing I have conceded is that it's reasonable to infer that a board member of a pro-pedophilia magazine is pro-pedophilia. But you haven't even proved that much. .
Paidika is a dutch pro paedophilia magazine.
Your evidence of this is a forum entry and some kind of webpage that could have been written by anybody. Do you have any authoritative evidence that A) This magazine exists and B) It is pro-pedophilia and C) that Bulloughs consulting is also pro-pedophilia?
I could easily create a webpage with a made up interview in a made up magazine and call it evidence. Also, I have been able to find no references to this magazine, nor a website except references by those who claim it is pro-pedophilia. Perhaps Mr. Bullough is simply an expert in the field of pedophiliac psychology.
I am alleging that Vern Bullough ( a CSICOP member) , the consultant editor of a pro-paedophilia dutch magazine, is also the editor of the Human Sexuality Books section of Prometheus Books (run by Paul Kurtz , chairman of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
Again, authoritative evidence that the magazine is pro-pediphilia. Being about pedophilia doesn't necessarily mean it is "pro".
copiae
04-03-2005, 10:50 PM
My friends, latin is a master of innuendo and insinuation. He knows perfectly well what he's doing and he plays the "dumb foreigner" card when he gets backed into a corner. This is old hat [paranormal hat?], I've seen the routine dozens of times. Don't fall for it.
What you say is certainly possible, but little mistakes like this seem to pop up all the time for people who are not really familiar with the language. When I was learning English, I initially saw no difference in "close" and "turn off" This led to such phrases as "Close the light". Granted, this is a relatively minor slip up, but there were many others like it along the way. I don't think I managed to insult anyone during that time, but then again, I was talking, and not writing.
I don't claim to know latinijral's inner workings, but I can see how various connotations of his posts can be infavourably interpreted. 'My dear lady' seems somewhat condescending to me, but it could just be latinijral trying to show that he means no harm.
One thing I don't understand is the questioning of the avatar. Why is it relevant to the topic? :)
Goliath
04-03-2005, 11:57 PM
I'm not that fat! :sadnana:
Actually, I was referring more to myself. I'm sorry if my insane, lunatic ranting was unclear. :D
:sorry:
latinijral
04-04-2005, 01:17 AM
Your evidence of this is a forum entry and some kind of webpage that could have been written by anybody. Do you have any authoritative evidence that A) This magazine exists and B) It is pro-pedophilia and C) that Bulloughs consulting is also pro-pedophilia? .
The forum entry was from Skeptic Friends Network. The poster :Tomk80 from Netherlands. He was asked to research about what Paidika is.
His response was : “To answer dr. Mabuses question on what kind of magazine 'paidika' is. It is a dutch peer-reviewed magazine on paedophilia.”
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4000&whichpage=15
It you are not satisfied with the link , let’s try with the links posted by Warrently (on his first post on page 3) , in his attempt to defend Ralph Underwager's view and Dr Vern Bullough .
About Ralph Underwater:
http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/wwwboard/messages/1986.html
Quote :
“ABSTRACT: In 1990, Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield gave an interview to the editor of Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, a scholarly journal published in Holland. The interview was published in 1993. Since that time, statements from the interview have been taken out-of-context and misinterpreted as indicating that RU and HW approve of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Here, they respond to these criticisms and accusations.”
About Dr. Vern Bullough:
http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/activities/editorial.html
1988 - Editor, Prometheus Books, Series, New Concepts In Human Sexuality, an on going series.
1988 - Editorial Advisory Board, Psychology and Human Sexuality..
[B]1988 - 98 - Consulting Editor, Paidika
----------------------------------------------------
If you want to read the complete Paidika interview of Ralph Underwater is here:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html
- Quote : Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika,
a European pro-pedophile publication.
-
-
You will have a basis to know if they are : anti-paedophilia, paedophilia or pro-paedophilia .
It is up to you to have your own criteria of paedophilia , to investigate about them , to support them, to join them, to combat them …………………..but remember this is just a WARNINIG.
LadyShea
04-04-2005, 01:43 AM
The forum entry was from Skeptic Friends Network. The poster :Tomk80 from Netherlands. He was asked to research about what Paidika is.
His response was : “To answer dr. Mabuses question on what kind of magazine 'paidika' is. It is a dutch peer-reviewed magazine on paedophilia.”
Anonymous people on a forum are not authoratative. He could have said Paidika is a cooking magazine and I would have no way to know if he was correct.
It you are not satisfied with the link , let’s try with the links posted by Warrently (on his first post on page 3) , in his attempt to defend Ralph Underwager's view and Dr Vern Bullough .
About Ralph Underwater:
http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/wwwboard/messages/1986.html
Quote :
“ABSTRACT: In 1990, Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield gave an interview to the editor of Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, a scholarly journal published in Holland. The interview was published in 1993. Since that time, statements from the interview have been taken out-of-context and misinterpreted as indicating that RU and HW approve of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Here, they respond to these criticisms and accusations.”
Napanet.net appears to be an Internet services company. That page isn't authoratative either. It appears to be some kind of message list. Who did that criticism and why should I believe him or her?
Non credible, again. That could have been written by anybody.
About Dr. Vern Bullough:
http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/activities/editorial.html
1988 - Editor, Prometheus Books, Series, New Concepts In Human Sexuality, an on going series.
1988 - Editorial Advisory Board, Psychology and Human Sexuality..
[B]1988 - 98 - Consulting Editor, Paidika
It says consulting editor of Paidika, but that doesn't tell me what Paidika is or whether it is pro anything.
If you want to read the complete Paidika interview of Ralph Underwater is here:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html
- Quote : Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika,
a European pro-pedophile publication.
Again a biased, non authoratative, and highly unprofessional site. Not credible.
You will have a basis to know if they are : anti-paedophilia, paedophilia or pro-paedophilia .
Nope, all I have is the word of some people on the Internet who I don't find credible.
It is up to you to have your own criteria of paedophilia , to investigate about them , to support them, to join them, to combat them …………………..but remember this is just a WARNINIG.
I know what pedophilia is. I also know what progaganda is and I know what conspiracy theories are and what the spooky nuts are capable of...and that is all you have given us to go on. You have presented zero credible evidence.
John Carter
04-04-2005, 02:31 AM
I'm still confused about what the actual point is. Latinirjal presents what he calls evidence that certain skeptics have connections to what he claims are pro-pedophilia groups - evidence that is not exactly convincing, as LadyShea points out - but I have yet to see a conclusion. What exactly is your point, Latinirjal? Please be specific.
As far as I can tell all you have here is one huge ad hominem, and therefore even if your evidence is true, your argument - if you actually have one - is invalid. Or are you not really interested in a real argument, and this is just more innuendo and insinuation?
xouper
04-04-2005, 04:02 AM
John Carter: I'm still confused about what the actual point is. Latinirjal presents what he calls evidence that certain skeptics have connections to what he claims are pro-pedophilia groups - evidence that is not exactly convincing, as LadyShea points out - but I have yet to see a conclusion. What exactly is your point, Latinirjal? Please be specific.
As far as I can tell all you have here is one huge ad hominem, and therefore even if your evidence is true, your argument - if you actually have one - is invalid. Or are you not really interested in a real argument, and this is just more innuendo and insinuation?
Those of us who are familiar with the tactics of "latinijral" on other forums no longer pay any attention to him or his specious rantings. He is just a troll. Attempting to engage a dialog with him is a waste of time. Even his name is troll bait, since the "ijral" part stands for "Is James Randi A Liar". His objective is simply to smear the reputations of his targets. It isn't working. The only reputation he has ruined is his own. My advice is to ignore him and not give any credence to any of his blatherings.
latinijral
04-04-2005, 04:05 AM
About Dr. Vern Bullough:
http://www.vernbullough.com/bulloug.../editorial.html
1988 - Editor, Prometheus Books, Series, New Concepts In Human Sexuality, an on going series.
1988 - Editorial Advisory Board, Psychology and Human Sexuality..
[B]1988 - 98 - Consulting Editor, Paidika
It says consulting editor of Paidika, but that doesn't tell me what Paidika is or whether it is pro anything.
If you are interested you can consult Dr. Vern Bullough what Paidika is.
Here you can contact information:
http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/addendum/contact.html
Or you can make your own research
It is up to you to have your own criteria of paedophilia , to investigate about them , to support them, to join them, to combat them …………………..but remember this is just a WARNINIG. .
I know what pedophilia is. I also know what progaganda is and I know what conspiracy theories are and what the spooky nuts are capable of...and that is all you have given us to go on. You have presented zero credible evidence. .
You are an anonymous voice on a forum and what you are saying is not authoritative.
This is a warning to parents and children reading this board.
They have the base to decide.
Dingfod
04-04-2005, 04:30 AM
Uri? Is that you?
LadyShea
04-04-2005, 04:45 AM
If you are interested you can consult Dr. Vern Bullough what Paidika is.
Here you can contact information:
http://www.vernbullough.com/bullough/addendum/contact.html
Or you can make your own research
[QUOTE=LadyShea][QUOTE=latinijral]
I have tried to research, but the only mentions of Paidika and pedophilia are on propoganda and conspiracy theory sites.
You are an anonymous voice on a forum and what you are saying is not authoritative.
I am not the one making possibly libelous assertions. I am not trying to prove anything or make any claims. You are.
So, are you a troll as others that are familiar with you have suggested? If not, you better learn how to debate and persuade because you ain't cutting it.
This is a warning to parents and children reading this board.
They have the base to decide.
You haven't given them anything to consider. Insinuations and hysteria.
Dingfod
04-04-2005, 05:00 AM
I have tried to research, but the only mentions of Paidika and pedophilia are on propoganda and conspiracy theory sites.I ran into the same roadblocks as you have. Near as I can figure out, PAIDIKA is a psychological journal specializing in treatment of pediphiles. Vern Bullough, given his credentials as a pychologist and author specializing in sexual behavior, would be an excellent person to have on a board of a magazine devoted to this subject. PAIDIKA doesn't have a website that I can find, which I find a bit unusual these days. Maybe its been out of business for the past 15 years or so. Anyway, I'm still waiting for evidence that a)James Randi, Vern Bulloghs, et al admitted to being pediphiles or pro-pediphilia, and b)that PAIDIKA is a pro-pediphilia magazine.
LadyShea
04-04-2005, 05:13 AM
Near as I can figure out, PAIDIKA is a psychological journal specializing in treatment of pediphiles. Vern Bullough, given his credentials as a pychologist and author specializing in sexual behavior, would be an excellent person to have on a board of a magazine devoted to this subject.
That's what I was thinking. Makes much more sense than the theory that it's a medical journal promoting pedophilia.
In fact, if anything, I'll bet they published the study demonstrating that childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful...a study blocked from being published in the US. So, since they published it, they are "pro pedophilia" according to some people.
justaman
04-04-2005, 05:51 AM
This is a warning to parents and children reading this board.
They have the base to decide.
All your paedophilia are belong to us.
:ufo:
Dragar
04-05-2005, 01:01 AM
Justaman, you're hilarious. :)
latinijral
04-05-2005, 04:08 AM
Those of us who are familiar with the tactics of "latinijral" on other forums no longer pay any attention to him or his specious rantings. .
False.
Your post reveals that you are paying me attention.
Who are “those of us” ? You and your big tongue?
In LatinAmerica we use “big tongue” instead of “big mouth”.
You are hided in John Carter’s quote to blame about me.
You are a member of the JREF forum, but with your hypocrite attitude you always blame the JREF and C.F.Larsen in other forums. Do it there. Don’t be a coward.
Now you are blaming about the NEW “skepticforum” and C.F.Larsen , but as usual you are blaming about them in another forum : http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=5534&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80&sid=ca90254552ea984bd94f92129b8d5116
As Skeptica ( G6) told you : “Xouper, don't you think it's better if you did post at that forum just to let them know. After all, it could help.”
Don’t keep acting as a coward…………………………. do it there.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=202
Meet C.F.Larsen (SkepticReport) and………. Skeptoid ( yes , the same who wrote here).
Learn how to beat those pseudo skeptics at their own territory.
Even Skeptoid learned a lesson in my thread. Read how he is “following” me and showing there another vision of latinijral .
How long you will carry your coward attitude?
And when I wrote “you and your big tongue ?” be careful to don’t relate it to your avatar.
Einstein was not a coward.
---------------------------------
My excuses to the other members and lurkers of this board , but Xouper’s coward attitude only tries to hijack the topic.
It is his problem and he doesn’t find the solution yet. Poor guy.
His next usual coward (hit and run) step is to post this :” I have you on ignore”
latinijral
04-05-2005, 04:10 AM
Uri? Is that you? .
U........................you
R........................are
I.........................ingenuous
If I told you, YES I am Uri ……….would you believe me?
If I told you, NO I am not Uri……would you believe me?
And you pretend to be a skeptic?
Just keep defending Vern Bullough , Ralph Underwager and Paidika ……… you are so obsessed with URI.
But…………………………. remember I made you a warning.
Dingfod
04-05-2005, 04:27 AM
If I told you, YES I am Uri ……….would you believe me?
If I told you, NO I am not Uri……would you believe me?
And you pretend to be a skeptic?
Just keep defending Vern Bullough , Ralph Underwager and Paidika ……… you are so obsessed with URI.
But…………………………. remember I made you a warning.
Yeah, you did, over and over and over and over and over. Even to teenagers one shouldn't repeat oneself more than three times, because if that doesn't get it done, then some other tactic must be used.
I don't give a shit if you are or are not Uri Geller, though I think you might be and thus have an obvious axe to grind. I was being facetious about that anyway, and also about not wanting to click your links. I don't have to pretend to be a skeptic, I'm even skeptical about skepticism. I'm way too skeptical sometimes.
However, every one of those people you have accused by inference, even that magazine PAIDIKA deserve the benefit of the doubt because you have utterly failed to present convincing evidence that they are what you say they are.
xouper
04-05-2005, 04:46 AM
Those of us who are familiar with the tactics of "latinijral" on other forums no longer pay any attention to him or his specious rantings.
blah blah blah ...
blah blah BLAH blah ...
HA! I knew my comment would get your panties in a twist. :popcorn:
Crumb
04-05-2005, 04:51 AM
Xouper: The master panty twister.
xouper
04-05-2005, 05:09 AM
Xouper: The master panty twister.I do wedgies too.
latinijralhttp://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/images/smiles/Wedgie.gif xouper
Crumb
04-05-2005, 05:12 AM
I'll keep that in mind of I ever need a...eh...wedgie.
viscousmemories
04-05-2005, 05:17 AM
Sorry latinijral, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about the other various claims you've made in this thread, but you're not going to convince me that xouper is a coward. I've witnessed some parts of his and your posting history on JREF and SkepticalCommunity with my own eyes, and I have seen him stand up to a lot more shit than a lot of people. I could just as easily ask you why you aren't trying to prove this theory of yours over at JREF instead of here.
John Carter
04-05-2005, 05:23 AM
I could just as easily ask you why you aren't trying to prove this theory of yours over at JREF instead of here.
What exactly is this theory? I've seen several allegations, but no definite conclusion. I've asked latinijral to clarify this several times in this thread, but so far he has not answered me.
I could just as easily ask you why you aren't trying to prove this theory of yours over at JREF instead of here.
What exactly is this theory? I've seen several allegations, but no definite conclusion. I've asked latinijral to clarify this several times in this thread, but so far he has not answered me.
You will never get a straight answer to your question. Stupid as he is, latinijral knows that it would be libelous to do so. It's all part of his schtick. :yawn:
viscousmemories
04-05-2005, 05:55 AM
Yeah, true enough. I can't even understand most of the hypotheses much less the theory.
xavierOnassis
04-05-2005, 06:22 AM
Not being familiar with any of the protagonists...
Hmm... I'm not sure I really understand who you're addressing, xavierOnassis. Only one person in this thread (that I've noticed) has been supporting the claims (vague though they are) made in the OP, and that's the guy who started the thread.
I assumed he was addressing the OP, and saying that, even not knowing anyone involved in the thread, that it is obvious that any accusations, real or implied, against anyone else, are specifically motivated by the fact that the OP had an axe to grind.
And yeah, xavierOnassis, all new users here get deconstructed all to hell like this. It's like hazing.
for a moment there i thought i'd slipped and posted in swahili... let me check... nope... it's in english
latinijral
04-05-2005, 06:34 AM
Near as I can figure out, PAIDIKA is a psychological journal specializing in treatment of pediphiles. Vern Bullough, given his credentials as a pychologist and author specializing in sexual behavior, would be an excellent person to have on a board of a magazine devoted to this subject. .
That's what I was thinking. Makes much more sense than the theory that it's a medical journal promoting pedophilia. .
Based on what? On what Warrently is figuring out? Any evidence to back up your claim?
In fact, if anything, I'll bet they published the study demonstrating that childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful...a study blocked from being published in the US. So, since they published it, they are "pro pedophilia" according to some people. .
Why was blocked from being published in the USA?
And according to your previous statement , are they “pro peadophilia” ?
Do you agree with them that childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful. ?
Warrently , maybe you don’t need to kill those people, “science” will help you to understand. And stop dreaming with URI.
Remember I made a warning. When it looks like a duck, walk like a duck………”maybe” is a duck.
Congratulations for your “research” .
Good luck with your answers.
viscousmemories
04-05-2005, 06:35 AM
for a moment there i thought i'd slipped and posted in swahili... let me check... nope... it's in english
Even native English speakers can have misunderstandings, so I prefer to ask for clarification before I respond to what I think the person meant. Of course whether you oblige is entirely your prerogative, but then if that's too much bother, why post at all?
Dingfod
04-05-2005, 06:50 AM
Warrently , maybe you don’t need to kill those people, “science” will help you to understand. And stop dreaming with URI.Kill who? I love you putting science in quotation marks, it makes it seem like you scoff at science and skepticism.
Remember I made a warning. When it looks like a duck, walk like a duck………”maybe” is a duck.So, which is it, chicken or duck? You say it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, but you haven't shown us a duck, only your word that it is. Why should we take your word for it? Seems more like a quack at work than a duck.
Remember, there is no spoon.
latinijral
04-06-2005, 05:34 AM
Warrently , maybe you don’t need to kill those people, “science” will help you to understand. And stop dreaming with URI.Kill who? I love you putting science in quotation marks, it makes it seem like you scoff at science and skepticism..
Did you forgot your post at page one concerning your daughter?
Remember I made a warning. When it looks like a duck, walk like a duck………”maybe” is a duck.So, which is it, chicken or duck? You say it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, but you haven't shown us a duck, only your word that it is. Why should we take your word for it? Seems more like a quack at work than a duck.
Remember, there is no spoon.
I am now based on your own research and LisaShea research.Read my previous post and answer the questions.
You claimed ( without any evidence to support it):"Near as I can figure out, PAIDIKA is a psychological journal specializing in treatment of pediphiles. Vern Bullough, given his credentials as a pychologist and author specializing in sexual behavior, would be an excellent person to have on a board of a magazine devoted to this subject"
Lisa Shea claimed:"In fact, if anything, I'll bet they published the study demonstrating that childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful...a study blocked from being published in the US. So, since they published it, they are "pro pedophilia" according to some people."
Now don't skip the questions:
Why the report was blocked from being published in the USA?
And according to your previous statement , are they “pro peadophilia” ?
Do you agree with them that childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful. ?
Remember it is not about how ...........U R I.
Dingfod
04-06-2005, 05:43 AM
Now don't skip the questions:
Why the report was blocked from being published in the USA?I don't know, maybe it wasn't politically correct?
And according to your previous statement , are they “pro peadophilia” ?I don't know. I haven't read their writings on the subject. I bet you haven't either.
Do you agree with them that childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful. ?That is really two separate questions.
1)Are child sexual experiences with adults always harmful?
2)Are child sexual experiences with adults usually harmful?
Pure speculation on my part, but I'm not afraid of the subject matter:
1) No. There are probably a number of cases of people that grew up unharmed by their sexual experiences with adults.
2) Yes. I think that most child sexual experiences with adults are harmful and therefor the reason they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Remember it is not about how ...........U R I.You or I? Thanks for the dance, Uri.
LadyShea
04-06-2005, 06:14 AM
The study was denounced by the US Congress because they didn't like the findings.
What got Congress riled was an article last year in the journal
Psychological Bulletin, which is to behavioral science what the
Journal of the American Medical Assn. is to medicine. Articles must
pass rigorous peer review, during which they are scrutinized for their
methods, statistics and conclusions. The authors of the article--Bruce
Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman--statistically analyzed
59 studies, involving more than 37,000 men and women, on the
effects of childhood sexual abuse on college students. (A previous
paper reviewed studies of more than 12,000 adults in the general
population.)
The findings, reported with meticulous detail and caution, are
astonishing. The researchers found no overall link between childhood
sexual abuse and later emotional disorders or unusual psychological
problems in adulthood. Of course, some experiences, such as rape by
a father, are more devastating than others, such as seeing a flasher in
an alley. But the children most harmed by sexual abuse are those
from terrible family environments, where abuse is one of many awful
things they have to endure.Source (http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/child_sex_abuse.htm)
The article was published in the July 1998 edition of the Psychological Bulletin, my mistake, but it was denounced formally by Congress.
A controversial academic study of pedophilia was roundly condemned yesterday by several congressmen, who chastised the American Psychological Association for publishing its findings.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and GOP Reps. Matt Salmon of Arizona, Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania and Dave Weldon of Florida yesterday co-sponsored a resolution calling on President Clinton to join Congress in condemning the report, which suggests that sex between adults and children may not always be harmful.
The Washington Times; 5/13/1999; Duin, Julia
Dingfod
04-06-2005, 06:17 AM
Doesn't it stink when science goes counter to conventional wisdom?
LadyShea
04-06-2005, 06:35 AM
Near as I can figure out, PAIDIKA is a psychological journal specializing in treatment of pediphiles. Vern Bullough, given his credentials as a pychologist and author specializing in sexual behavior, would be an excellent person to have on a board of a magazine devoted to this subject. .
That's what I was thinking. Makes much more sense than the theory that it's a medical journal promoting pedophilia. .
Based on what? On what Warrently is figuring out? Any evidence to back up your claim?
Once again, you have strange definitions of claims and rules of evidence.
I did not make a claim, I stated an opinion. I, therefore, need no evidence.
However, I based my opinion on Occam's Razor. It makes much more sense for a peer reviewed medical journal to be about a general area, not to be pro or con anything, based on my knoweldege of peer reviewed medical journals.
Of course, that is if, in fact, Paidika is a journal as claimed. I have still found no credible evidence of that and you have presented none.
Why was blocked from being published in the USA?
I was mistaken, it was published in the top US psychology journal. See my previous post.
And according to your previous statement , are they “pro peadophilia” ?
Are who pro-pedophilia? Paidika? Once again, I was just throwing a hypothesis out there. And no, publishing a well done study is not pro or con anything.
Do you agree with them that childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful. ?
I am not a psychologist nor do I have any experience in the area. However, if the scientific findings are that it is not always harmful, I don't find that impossible to believe. Further study would be warranted at least.
Congratulations for your “research” .
Good luck with your answers.
What is that supposed to mean?
And my name is LadyShea. There is also a lisarea posting in this thread. We are not some kind of combined person named Lisa Shea.
LadyShea
04-06-2005, 06:58 AM
By the way, if the study reflects reality, then that's good news. And far from giving pedophiles carte blanche as claimed, it simply gives caretakers more information on how to treat or relate to children who have experienced abuse. It is certainly possible that overreacting can cause harm in and of itself.
I think scientific information, any information, needs to be distributed and studied and restudied to add to the body of knowledge...not squashed because someone doesn't like the findings.
justaman
04-06-2005, 07:51 AM
K I don't get it. Is Mexican Penis Man claiming to be Uri Geller or something?
:?
Dingfod
04-06-2005, 08:37 AM
K I don't get it. Is Mexican Penis Man claiming to be Uri Geller or something?
:?Well, I don't know for sure, but I suspect latinrjal is either Uri Geller, or someone sympathetic to him. Nobody has a bigger axe to grind against skeptic organizations such as the JREF and CSICOP because they have exposed him as a fraud over and over again.
I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator.
Who knows.
...too bad Geller appears to be such a con, he is quite the looker.
By the way, if the study reflects reality, then that's good news. And far from giving pedophiles carte blanche as claimed, it simply gives caretakers more information on how to treat or relate to children who have experienced abuse. It is certainly possible that overreacting can cause harm in and of itself.
I think scientific information, any information, needs to be distributed and studied and restudied to add to the body of knowledge...not squashed because someone doesn't like the findings.I agree totally. Sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser. I also think it is important for people to have access to such studies to know that just because something bad happened, the child isn't necessarily going to be shattered for the rest of his or her life.
latinijral
04-07-2005, 05:52 AM
Once again, you have strange definitions of claims and rules of evidence.
I did not make a claim, I stated an opinion. I, therefore, need no evidence.
However, I based my opinion on Occam's Razor. It makes much more sense for a peer reviewed medical journal to be about a general area, not to be pro or con anything, based on my knoweldege of peer reviewed medical journals.
Of course, that is if, in fact, Paidika is a journal as claimed. I have still found no credible evidence of that and you have presented none. .
You have made a claim that Paidika must be a peer reviewed medical journal ( because it makes more much sense to you)
Where is your evidence to back up your claim?
I am not a psychologist nor do I have any experience in the area. However, if the scientific findings are that it is not always harmful, I don't find that impossible to believe. Further study would be warranted at least. .
“Scientific findings” are not the last word. Science is constantly reviewed and the mistakes in name of science are so numerous. That is a fact.
Under that perspective , if a child of yours (I hope it never happens) suffer a not harmful sexual experience with an adult , how with you handle it ( based in what you believe)?
What do you consider could be a not harmful child sexual experience with an adult?
Don’t you think that the adult is always taking advantage over the child? Therefore it may never be an excuse for them?
Don’t you agree with the actions taken by the USA congressmen regarding the topic?
Do you agree with BETH that “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” ?
Don’t you think that stating “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” is opening the possibility to a child to stay in silence after the abuse , giving the abuser more advantage?
Those are open questions to the posters involved in the discussion of the WARNING I made.
I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator. .
Dear lady , come back with the evidence that back up your friend’s claim.
Of course you will never provide it. How do I know?
I am “reading your mind”……..you want to insult me …….again ,………….. because you don’t need to back up your claims………… you are an skeptic…….right? :yawn:
LadyShea
04-07-2005, 06:10 AM
You have made a claim that Paidika must be a peer reviewed medical journal ( because it makes more much sense to you)
Where is your evidence to back up your claim?
No, that was claimed on the links you provided me. I did not claim it, and in fact stated clearly "Of course, that is if, in fact, Paidika is a journal as claimed." because I have no proof that it is a journal of any kind because you haven't presented any and my reserach turned up nothing creditble or authoratative.
“Scientific findings” are not the last word. Science is constantly reviewed and the mistakes in name of science are so numerous. That is a fact.
Which is why I stated that the findings warrant further study into the issue. Are you actually reading my posts?
Under that perspective , if a child of yours (I hope it never happens) suffer a not harmful sexual experience with an adult , how with you handle it ( based in what you believe)?
I don't have any children and I don't know how I would handle it. I would probably consult an expert, like a doctor.
What do you consider could be a not harmful child sexual experience with an adult?
As was mentioned in the study, and as I have heard from several acquaintances, adolescent males often find sexual relations with adult women a positive experience.
Consensual sex between an older teen and a younger adult are often long term and not harmful (such as a 16-year old and a 21-year old)
Don’t you think that the adult is always taking advantage over the child? Therefore it may never be an excuse for them?
Depends on the ages and circumstances as I stated above.
Don’t you agree with the actions taken by the USA congressmen regarding the topic?
No, as I clearly stated in previous posts and included my reasons for disagreeing. Again, I ask, are you reading my posts?
Do you agree with BETH that “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” ?
I don't have any direct experience, but yes, I can see that being a possibility in some cases.
Don’t you think that stating “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” is opening the possibility to a child to stay in silence after the abuse , giving the abuser more advantage?
Huh? Why would not freaking out and getting hysterical, and instead address the issue calmly, make the child stay silent?
Crumb
04-07-2005, 06:16 AM
“Scientific findings” are not the last word. Science is constantly reviewed and the mistakes in name of science are so numerous. That is a fact.
Does this mean that every new scientific finding is wrong? (if not it was a waste of keystrokes.)
Under that perspective , if a child of yours (I hope it never happens) suffer a not harmful sexual experience with an adult , how with you handle it ( based in what you believe)?
Counsel the child and imprison the offender. I have heard no one suggest otherwise.
What do you consider could be a not harmful child sexual experience with an adult?
I don't know, one would guess the study describes what kind of experiences they studied. Perhaps you should read it.
Don’t you think that the adult is always taking advantage over the child? Therefore it may never be an excuse for them?
There is no excuse for sexually abusing a child. All such offenders should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I have seen no one suggest otherwise.
Don’t you agree with the actions taken by the USA congressmen regarding the topic?
No, I do not support goverment censorship of any kind, especially not of scientific journals, where free exchange of ideas is of paramount importance.
Do you agree with BETH that “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” ?
This may very well be true. I would certainly understand it if it were. I bet more study needs to be done to shead more light on this though. Shouldn't we study child sexual abuse so that we can better answer these questions?
Don’t you think that stating “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” is opening the possibility to a child to stay in silence after the abuse , giving the abuser more advantage?
The child is going to read this in a phsychology journal? Hopefully what it will do is educate parents and child welfare workers to mediate their reactions and therefore REDUCE harm. Rather than sweeping this effect under the rug, which seems to be what you are suggesting.
Those are open questions to the posters involved in the discussion of the WARNING I made.
Don't mind if I do. :wave:
John Carter
04-07-2005, 06:19 AM
Once again, you have strange definitions of claims and rules of evidence.
I did not make a claim, I stated an opinion. I, therefore, need no evidence.
However, I based my opinion on Occam's Razor. It makes much more sense for a peer reviewed medical journal to be about a general area, not to be pro or con anything, based on my knoweldege of peer reviewed medical journals.
Of course, that is if, in fact, Paidika is a journal as claimed. I have still found no credible evidence of that and you have presented none. .
You have made a claim that Paidika must be a peer reviewed medical journal ( because it makes more much sense to you)
Where is your evidence to back up your claim?
Umm... actually LadyShea said it might be a peer reviewed journal. Big difference.
The rest of your post is nothing more than the usual insinuation and innuendo I have come to expect from you.
Are you ever going to answer my oft repeated question, latinijral? I know you have seen my requests, since you specifically refer to someone else's reponse to one of them. Or are Skeptoid and xouper correct about you? I must admit that I am leaning towards the conclusion they are right on the money. All you have to do to change my mind is to have the courage to give me a straight, clear answer.
justaman
04-07-2005, 06:38 AM
Is anyone else having trouble working out exactly what MPM (mexican penis man) wants and why precisely he wants it?
As it stands I don't have a clue.
Crumb
04-07-2005, 06:43 AM
Well, many have asked him that very question justaman. I have twice. John Carter has at least three times. Many others have sprinkled the question here and there throughout their responses. It seems that MPM has trouble answering a straight question.
Methinks, as others have suggested, this is because he seeks to protect himself from charges of libel by using inuendo and insinuation to lead people to believe that some leading skeptics are pedaphiles. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.
:crutch:
John Carter
04-07-2005, 06:44 AM
You're not alone, justaman. I have repeatedly asked him to clarify his point, but he has not had the courage to present a complete argument.
xouper
04-07-2005, 08:33 AM
John Carter: ... Or are Skeptoid and xouper correct about you?
Indeed we are. Seriously. Ask any old-timer from the JREF forum where this all started more than two years ago.
“Scientific findings” are not the last word. Science is constantly reviewed and the mistakes in name of science are so numerous. That is a fact.
Under that perspective , if a child of yours (I hope it never happens) suffer a not harmful sexual experience with an adult , how with you handle it ( based in what you believe)? I would tell my child we must report the crime, call the police, then talk to my child. I would tell him I understand and ask my child to share his or her emotions with me. If my child couldn't, I would give my child time, maybe a long period of time. All the time being open and supportive. I would arrange for counseling, as well. I would leave it up to the counselor and my child to determine the impact of the abuse and up to the law to prosecute the offender, according to the law.
This does not mean I would not be a wreck, however. But I would have to put my child first and myself on the back burner.
What do you consider could be a not harmful child sexual experience with an adult?
Although I have not read the study, maybe the idea is that it may not cause permanent psychological and emotional damage to the child that will carry on into his or her adulthood.
Don’t you think that the adult is always taking advantage over the child? Therefore it may never be an excuse for them? It isn't making an excuse for the offender. It is a matter of how to handle the therapy of the child.
It does help a parent to know that the child may not be harmed for life. A parent needs to know that the child can very possibly grow to become an unscarred adult, in spite of the sexual abuse.
Don’t you think that stating “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” is opening the possibility to a child to stay in silence after the abuse , giving the abuser more advantage? i know that over reacting with my children silence them in future matters and it takes time to gain their trust back. It is better not to overreact because that is very frightening to a child. Remaining level-headed and calm while handling matters in a supportive way is the best way to insure that a child will not be silenced in future matters.
I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator. .
Dear lady , come back with the evidence that back up your friend’s claim.
Of course you will never provide it. How do I know? I simply stated someone's opinion, bub. ;)
I am “reading your mind”……..you want to insult me …….again ,………….. because you don’t need to back up your claims………… you are an skeptic…….right? :yawn:
I didn't make a claim, I stated someone's opinion. ;) Now, if you are Uri Geller, I can look at your picture and say that you are a looker, but that is my opinion, other people may think Geller is butt ugly. I can look at his work and feel that I am inclined to believe that I follow along the school of thought that believes Geller is a charlatin. Notice how I was careful to word myself, I am aware of Geller's lawsuits.;)
latinijral
04-08-2005, 04:10 AM
Resume of the posts of JUSTAMAN concerning this topic:
1) “you have a picture of a man with a little sombrero on his winky as your avatar.”
2)” Is Mexican Penis Man claiming to be Uri Geller or something?”
3) …”exactly what MPM (mexican penis man) wants..”
Copiae wrote (page 5) : “One thing I don't understand is the questioning of the avatar. Why is it relevant to the topic?”
Justaman,if you are a faggot, I respect your sexual choice , and I understand how you are amazed and focused in the avatar and in the penis covered with the “little sombrero”. Do you prefer the avatar without the little sombrero ? How many dreams you had about it? If you want your dreams come true you know where you can go.
If you want to claim that you are “just a man” , you will need to provide evidence of your claim.
Resume of John Carter’s posts concerning this topic:
“Are you ever going to answer my oft repeated question, latinijral?”
“I have repeatedly asked him to clarify his point”
Resume of Crumb’s support to John Carter’s request:
“I have twice. John Carter has at least three times. Many others have sprinkled the question here and there throughout their responses. “
Since the question was already answered , I will quote it AGAIN, the question and my ANSWER:
Questions made by Crumb (page one)
What point are you trying to make latinijral?
What action do you expect us to take based on this informaion? .
Answer by Latinijral in page two:
I made a WARNING.
It is up to you what you do after that.
You are even free to send your children to them ( if you “think” they will be scientifically educated), if you still think there is not any problem at all.
But you had been warned.
There is an evidence of pro-paedophilia actions listed before your post.
Again , you are free to do whatever you want. .
Crumb’s response to my answer:
Thanks for the 'warning' then, see ya' later. .
latinijral
04-08-2005, 04:12 AM
You have made a claim that Paidika must be a peer reviewed medical journal ( because it makes more much sense to you)
Where is your evidence to back up your claim? .
No, that was claimed on the links you provided me. I did not claim it, and in fact stated clearly "Of course, that is if, in fact, Paidika is a journal as claimed." because I have no proof that it is a journal of any kind because you haven't presented any and my reserach turned up nothing creditble or authoratative. .
Here is what you claimed about Paidika : ” It makes much more sense for a peer reviewed medical journal to be about a general area, not to be pro or con anything,”
Let me resume Warrently’s quote andt the link Warrently provided concerning Paidika :
http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/wwwboard/messages/1986.html
QUOTE of the link provided by Warrently::
“Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, a scholarly journal published in Holland.”
Quote by Warrently ( without any evidence to support it):
“Near as I can figure out, PAIDIKA is a psychological journal specializing in treatment of pediphiles.”
------------------------------------
Let me resume the quotes and links I provided concerning Paidika ( bolds are mine):
On my OP:
1) http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html
QUOTE:“ ….who is a CSICOP Board member.
Vern Bullough is also listed as a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine in which Dr Ralph Underwager…….. “
--------------
On page one :
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html
QUOTE: “Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika,
a European pro-pedophile publication.”
----------------
On page 3:
http://www.lukeford.com/archives/updates/980806a.htm
QUOTE:” the sex guru emeritus at the conference was Dr. Vern L. Bullough, a self-admitted pedophile and an editor of the Journal of Pedophilia.”
-----------
On page 5:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum...00&whichpage=15
QUOTE by Tomk80: “To answer dr. Mabuses question on what kind of magazine 'paidika' is. It is a dutch peer-reviewed magazine on paedophilia.”
http://www.vernbullough.com/bulloug.../editorial.html
QUOTE:”1988 - Editor, Prometheus Books, Series, New Concepts In Human Sexuality, an on going series.
1988 - Editorial Advisory Board, Psychology and Human Sexuality..
1988 - 98 - Consulting Editor, Paidika"
Quote by latinijral:
“If you are interested you can consult Dr. Vern Bullough what Paidika is.
Here you can contact information:
http://www.vernbullough.com/bulloug...um/contact.html
Or you can make your own research”
----------------
Those are the links I provided concerning Paidika.
IMO Paedophiles can be erudites ,academics, scientists , academic awarded, skeptics, true believers, punks, truck drivers, school professors ,priests or with or any profession at all. But they will be still paedophiles.
Will you please quote and link the evidence that support your new claim that Paidika might be a peer reviewed medical journal, based on the links I posted concerning this topic.
Under that perspective , if a child of yours (I hope it never happens) suffer a not harmful sexual experience with an adult , how with you handle it ( based in what you believe)? .
I don't have any children and I don't know how I would handle it. I would probably consult an expert, like a doctor. .
Like Dr. Vern Bullough , the editor of Paidika?
Crumb
04-08-2005, 04:38 AM
Justaman,if you are a faggot, I respect your sexual choice , and I understand how you are amazed and focused in the avatar and in the penis covered with the “little sombrero”. Do you prefer the avatar without the little sombrero ? How many dreams you had about it? If you want your dreams come true you know where you can go.
Well, this kind of crap signals my cue to leave. You are not worth my time. Have a nice life.
xouper
04-08-2005, 05:46 AM
Justaman,if you are a faggot, I respect your sexual choice , and I understand how you are amazed and focused in the avatar and in the penis covered with the “little sombrero”. Do you prefer the avatar without the little sombrero ? How many dreams you had about it? If you want your dreams come true you know where you can go.
Well, this kind of crap signals my cue to leave. You are not worth my time. Have a nice life.
Exactly. Latinijral is not worth the effort. As long as people keep responding to him, he will keep trolling y'all. No one believes any of his lame attempts at character assissinations and other nonsense, so there's no need to keep defending yourselves.
We all know latinijral is a sorry little pissant. The one thing he does not like is to be ignored and he will escalate the insults until he manages to get under someone's skin enough to reply to him and this just prolongs a pointless thread.
Have confidence that his blatherings need no response or counter-attack and then everyone can walk away from this pathetic thread. Latin will not let you have the last word, so let him have it. Have confidence that nothing he can say about any of the posters on this forum will have the effect he wants.
John Carter
04-08-2005, 06:24 AM
I see, latinijral. You admit, then, that you have no real argument (in the logical sense) or point. As you cannot even present real conclusive evidence that any of these people actually are pedophiles I see that, as I suspected, you are engaging in nothing more than a war of innuendo and insinuation.
Unless and until you have something of any real substance to offer, I have nothing more to say on this thread.
justaman
04-08-2005, 07:46 AM
Resume of the posts of JUSTAMAN concerning this topic:
1) “you have a picture of a man with a little sombrero on his winky as your avatar.”
2)” Is Mexican Penis Man claiming to be Uri Geller or something?”
3) …”exactly what MPM (mexican penis man) wants..”
Just wait for the chilling conclusion in Chapter 5.
Justaman,if you are a faggot, I respect your sexual choice , and I understand how you are amazed and focused in the avatar and in the penis covered with the “little sombrero”. Do you prefer the avatar without the little sombrero ? How many dreams you had about it? If you want your dreams come true you know where you can go.
Now you lithten to me, you little mothofocka, ohkay? I thaid to the latht guy who tried to fuck me in the ath, "Boy, you betta get that thing outta my ath or I will shit on it!"
I'm not sure there is anything I am more comfortable with than my sexuality, MPM, so attacking that probly won't achieve much :wink:
I made a WARNING.
It is up to you what you do after that.
You are even free to send your children to them ( if you “think” they will be scientifically educated), if you still think there is not any problem at all.
But you had been warned.
There is an evidence of pro-paedophilia actions listed before your post.
Again , you are free to do whatever you want.
Let's assume they're all paedophiles. Is there anything wrong with their skeptical point of view? I assume you believe in the supernatural. Is there any relevance either for or against belief in the supernatural based on what you are talking about here?
justaman
04-08-2005, 07:49 AM
And for everyone elses benefit, I apologise for feeding the trolls but the fact is I like trolls, they're fun :D
I don't get to spitefully engage with the rest of you guys, I need enemies dagnabit.
LadyShea
04-08-2005, 08:10 AM
Here is what you claimed about Paidika : ” It makes much more sense for a peer reviewed medical journal to be about a general area, not to be pro or con anything,”
Yes, because the links you provided me stated it is a journal. If it is a journal, then it makes more sense that it is not pro or con anything. Am I stuttering or something? What are you not understanding about my posts?
Let me resume Warrently’s quote andt the link Warrently provided concerning Paidika :
http://www.napanet.net/~moiraj/wwwboard/messages/1986.html
Warrenly didn't provide that source, you did page 1 post 18. And, I already explained why I believe it is not a credible source.
Why are you attributing it to Warrenly??
QUOTE of the link provided by Warrently::
“Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia, a scholarly journal published in Holland.”
Quote by Warrently ( without any evidence to support it):
“Near as I can figure out, PAIDIKA is a psychological journal specializing in treatment of pediphiles.”
If Paidika is a "scholary journal about pedophilia", then it is perfectly plausible (and much more likely) that it is about the psychology of pedophiles and not pro or con...which is all I claimed. And once again, YOU provided that link originally and I find is not credible.
------------------------------------
Let me resume the quotes and links I provided concerning Paidika ( bolds are mine):
On my OP:
1) http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html
QUOTE:“ ….who is a CSICOP Board member.
Vern Bullough is also listed as a board member of Paidika, the Dutch paedophile magazine in which Dr Ralph Underwager…….. “
Yes, we've seen your claims a million times and there is NO EVIDENCE that Paidika is, in fact, pro-pedophilia. It may or may not be about pedophilia at all, and if it is , it is much more likely to be a scientific journal and neither pro nor con, simply informational.
Do you understand what I am saying yet? How many more times do I need to repeat myself? Is your English that bad, because I am not using any big words or anything. Here, I'll make it really simple.
YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT PAIDIKA IS PRO PEDOPHILIA. CAN YOU PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE?
There, clear and big enough for ya?
--------------
On page one :
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html
QUOTE: “Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika,
a European pro-pedophile publication.”
----------------
THAT IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE.
You getting me yet?
On page 3:
http://www.lukeford.com/archives/updates/980806a.htm
QUOTE:” the sex guru emeritus at the conference was Dr. Vern L. Bullough, a self-admitted pedophile and an editor of the Journal of Pedophilia.”
-----------
On page 5:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum...00&whichpage=15
QUOTE by Tomk80: “To answer dr. Mabuses question on what kind of magazine 'paidika' is. It is a dutch peer-reviewed magazine on paedophilia.”
MORE BULLSHIT SOURCES. CAN YOU FIND AN AUTHORITATIVE ONE?
http://www.vernbullough.com/bulloug.../editorial.html
QUOTE:”1988 - Editor, Prometheus Books, Series, New Concepts In Human Sexuality, an on going series.
1988 - Editorial Advisory Board, Psychology and Human Sexuality..
1988 - 98 - Consulting Editor, Paidika"
All that says is he is an editor at Paidika, but NOT WHAT PAIDIKA IS OR IS NOT.
Those are the links I provided concerning Paidika.
IMO Paedophiles can be erudites ,academics, scientists , academic awarded, skeptics, true believers, punks, truck drivers, school professors ,priests or with or any profession at all. But they will be still paedophiles.
I do not dispute that. What I dispute is that the people you are claiming are pedophiles are ACTUALLY pedophiles.
YOU HAVE NOT SUPPLIED ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Bullough is a pedophile.
Will you please quote and link the evidence that support your new claim that Paidika might be a peer reviewed medical journal, based on the links I posted concerning this topic.
Oh my god! You just quoted it yourself.
“To answer dr. Mabuses question on what kind of magazine 'paidika' is. It is a dutch peer-reviewed magazine on paedophilia.”
In the US, medical and scientific journals are called by the term "peer reviewed", not magazines. Pedophilia and other mental illnesses fall under the "medical" heading, so I put together your linked claim of "peer reviewed" with my knowledge of "peer reviewed journals" and chose medical.
So what exactly are you questioning me about?
Dr. Bullough has written a number of scholarly papers, on many topics, including pedophilia, however writing a paper on a topic does not mean one advocates it. You would need to read the papers to determine the scope, focus, and position of the author. HAVE YOU DONE SO?.
Like Dr. Vern Bullough , the editor of Paidika?
Is he a child psychologist? No, he isn't. So I wouldn't take my child to him.
xouper
04-08-2005, 08:24 AM
justaman: And for everyone elses benefit, I apologise for feeding the trolls but the fact is I like trolls, they're fun :D
Contrary to what some may say, trollfeeding is a legitimate hobby, and my comments generally do not apply to those people. Carry on. :D
beyelzu
04-08-2005, 08:51 AM
Those of us who are familiar with the tactics of "latinijral" on other forums no longer pay any attention to him or his specious rantings. .
False.
Your post reveals that you are paying me attention.
Who are “those of us” ? You and your big tongue?
In LatinAmerica we use “big tongue” instead of “big mouth”.
You are hided in John Carter’s quote to blame about me.
You are a member of the JREF forum, but with your hypocrite attitude you always blame the JREF and C.F.Larsen in other forums. Do it there. Don’t be a coward.
Now you are blaming about the NEW “skepticforum” and C.F.Larsen , but as usual you are blaming about them in another forum : http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=5534&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=80&sid=ca90254552ea984bd94f92129b8d5116
As Skeptica ( G6) told you : “Xouper, don't you think it's better if you did post at that forum just to let them know. After all, it could help.”
Don’t keep acting as a coward…………………………. do it there.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=202
Meet C.F.Larsen (SkepticReport) and………. Skeptoid ( yes , the same who wrote here).
Learn how to beat those pseudo skeptics at their own territory.
Even Skeptoid learned a lesson in my thread. Read how he is “following” me and showing there another vision of latinijral .
How long you will carry your coward attitude?
And when I wrote “you and your big tongue ?” be careful to don’t relate it to your avatar.
Einstein was not a coward.
---------------------------------
My excuses to the other members and lurkers of this board , but Xouper’s coward attitude only tries to hijack the topic.
It is his problem and he doesn’t find the solution yet. Poor guy.
His next usual coward (hit and run) step is to post this :” I have you on ignore”
this message brought to you by SCAP
SHADY
CUNTS
ADVOCATING
PEDOPHELIA
:tmgrin:
beyelzu
04-08-2005, 09:01 AM
Once again, you have strange definitions of claims and rules of evidence.
I did not make a claim, I stated an opinion. I, therefore, need no evidence.
However, I based my opinion on Occam's Razor. It makes much more sense for a peer reviewed medical journal to be about a general area, not to be pro or con anything, based on my knoweldege of peer reviewed medical journals.
Of course, that is if, in fact, Paidika is a journal as claimed. I have still found no credible evidence of that and you have presented none. .
You have made a claim that Paidika must be a peer reviewed medical journal ( because it makes more much sense to you)
Where is your evidence to back up your claim?
I am not a psychologist nor do I have any experience in the area. However, if the scientific findings are that it is not always harmful, I don't find that impossible to believe. Further study would be warranted at least. .
“Scientific findings” are not the last word. Science is constantly reviewed and the mistakes in name of science are so numerous. That is a fact.
Under that perspective , if a child of yours (I hope it never happens) suffer a not harmful sexual experience with an adult , how with you handle it ( based in what you believe)?
What do you consider could be a not harmful child sexual experience with an adult?
Don’t you think that the adult is always taking advantage over the child? Therefore it may never be an excuse for them?
Don’t you agree with the actions taken by the USA congressmen regarding the topic?
Do you agree with BETH that “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” ?
Don’t you think that stating “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” is opening the possibility to a child to stay in silence after the abuse , giving the abuser more advantage?
Those are open questions to the posters involved in the discussion of the WARNING I made.
I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator. .
Dear lady , come back with the evidence that back up your friend’s claim.
Of course you will never provide it. How do I know?
I am “reading your mind”……..you want to insult me …….again ,………….. because you don’t need to back up your claims………… you are an skeptic…….right? :yawn:
shady cunt*,
what does that have to do with your innuendo/warning?
*this is your new nickname, just incase you didnt understand what with your pisspoor enlgish and all.
beyelzu
04-08-2005, 09:06 AM
Is anyone else having trouble working out exactly what MPM (mexican penis man) wants and why precisely he wants it?
As it stands I don't have a clue.
damnit, justaman,
his name is shady cunt, I christened him on the first or second page of this thread.
:tmgrin:
although mexican penis man does have quite the ring to it.
beyelzu
04-08-2005, 09:09 AM
if you are a faggot...[and] you want your dreams come true you know where you can go.
I am guessing your house?
:tmtongue:
beyelzu
04-08-2005, 09:15 AM
Justaman,if you are a faggot, I respect your sexual choice , and I understand how you are amazed and focused in the avatar and in the penis covered with the “little sombrero”. Do you prefer the avatar without the little sombrero ? How many dreams you had about it? If you want your dreams come true you know where you can go.
Well, this kind of crap signals my cue to leave. You are not worth my time. Have a nice life.
Exactly. Latinijral is not worth the effort. As long as people keep responding to him, he will keep trolling y'all. No one believes any of his lame attempts at character assissinations and other nonsense, so there's no need to keep defending yourselves.
We all know latinijral is a sorry little pissant. The one thing he does not like is to be ignored and he will escalate the insults until he manages to get under someone's skin enough to reply to him and this just prolongs a pointless thread.
Have confidence that his blatherings need no response or counter-attack and then everyone can walk away from this pathetic thread. Latin will not let you have the last word, so let him have it. Have confidence that nothing he can say about any of the posters on this forum will have the effect he wants.
but I enjoy calling him a cunt.
it makes me happy
latinijral
04-09-2005, 04:16 AM
I see, latinijral. You admit, then, that you have no real argument (in the logical sense) or point. .
False. I didn’t admit that. Your “logical sense” is disturbed because I proved you and Crumb wrong.
My response, to your repeatedly /crying question, was done before you asked it……….. again and again and again.
latinijral
04-09-2005, 04:18 AM
What do you consider could be a not harmful child sexual experience with an adult? .
Although I have not read the study, maybe the idea is that it may not cause permanent psychological and emotional damage to the child that will carry on into his or her adulthood. .
That is just a definition of “not harmful”.
But you eluded to tell what kind/type of sexual experience would be that. :yawn:
Don’t you think that the adult is always taking advantage over the child? Therefore it may never be an excuse for them? .
It isn't making an excuse for the offender. It is a matter of how to handle the therapy of the child.
It does help a parent to know that the child may not be harmed for life. A parent needs to know that the child can very possibly grow to become an unscarred adult, in spite of the sexual abuse. .
You said you have not read the study, then your response is out of base. :P
Don’t you think that stating “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” is opening the possibility to a child to stay in silence after the abuse , giving the abuser more advantage? .
i know that over reacting with my children silence them in future matters and it takes time to gain their trust back. It is better not to overreact because that is very frightening to a child. Remaining level-headed and calm while handling matters in a supportive way is the best way to insure that a child will not be silenced in future matters. .
I wish you can provide some examples and evidence of what you considered and claimed : ““sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser”. :D
Dear lady , come back with the evidence that back up your friend’s claim.
Of course you will never provide it. How do I know? .
I simply stated someone's opinion, bub.
Dear lady, YOU wrote this: ” I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator”.
Read again about what I wrote .I was referring to your friend’s claim.
If your friend claimed something ,and if you pretend to be a skeptic , I am sure you asked him for the evidence that supports his claim .
You forgot?
Oh no, another ingenuous action from your side. :innocent:
I am “reading your mind”……..you want to insult me …….again ,………….. because you don’t need to back up your claims………… you are an skeptic…….right?
I didn't make a claim, I stated someone's opinion. Now, if you are Uri Geller, I can look at your picture and say that you are a looker, but that is my opinion, other people may think Geller is butt ugly. I can look at his work and feel that I am inclined to believe that I follow along the school of thought that believes Geller is a charlatin. Notice how I was careful to word myself, I am aware of Geller's lawsuits.
Opinión? False. Read the above :it was about your friend’s claim.
Hmmmmm, see how I am reading your mind?
It is easy now ,like when you eluded before to mention the boards, of your previous claim, where you linked to those child porn sites.
U ( you) R(are) I (ingenuous)
And I like your type. :wave:
xouper
04-09-2005, 04:39 AM
I see, latinijral. You admit, then, that you have no real argument (in the logical sense) or point. .
False. I didn’t admit that. Your “logical sense” is disturbed because I proved you and Crumb wrong.
My response, to your repeatedly /crying question, was done before you asked it……….. again and again and again.
:wedgie:
livius drusus
04-09-2005, 04:45 AM
latin, on IIDB people have posted links to sites with articles about sexuality which just "coincidentally" happen to be peppered with borderline child pornographic images. I have clicked on links to an article in the middle of a discussion of child sexuality only to find myself on a site with pictures of a child topless in the bathtub, or kids running around naked at a nudist camp.
The person who posted his links on IIDB was reported to the FBI by many of the people reading the dicussion, and I bet Beth is thinking of him in particular.
Now, I've taken your warning into consideration and discarded it as poorly sourced and vague. Knowing your history with JREF, I also mistrust your motives and believe you are on a mission to poison the well against skeptic organizations because you have a grudge against James Randi for dimissing your claim to the Million Dollar Prize.
I say this only to clarify my perspective on latin's risibile and totally played out innuendos about skeptics in the public eye and people like Beth who are a kind enough to engage him and smart enough to know just how full of shit he is.
beyelzu
04-09-2005, 04:49 AM
notice, my heaping abuse policy works sort of, I am hoping to get the shady cunt to engage, but thus far he has not, on the other hand the heaping abuse method seems to preclude him trying some bullshit with me.
livius drusus
04-09-2005, 04:52 AM
Imagine if you were still sporting your former tumescence.
Crumb
04-09-2005, 04:55 AM
That was tumescent? oh...I'm sorry bey. :wink:
beyelzu
04-09-2005, 05:35 AM
Imagine if you were still sporting your former tumescence.
no doubt, but I think I would need the beyelzu safe model that came with a condom cuz engaging slime is liable to leave stickiness
and you are all welcome in advance for that little mental picture.
:tmtongue:
beyelzu, I'd rilly, rilly like to see your old avatar sporting a sombrero. :D :yup:
John Carter
04-09-2005, 05:55 AM
I see, latinijral. You admit, then, that you have no real argument (in the logical sense) or point. .
False. I didn’t admit that. Your “logical sense” is disturbed because I proved you and Crumb wrong.
My response, to your repeatedly /crying question, was done before you asked it……….. again and again and again.
You have not proven me or Crumb wrong. Your "answer" was to say you are providing a warning. This is not what I have been asking for. It does not come close to answering my question.
In the logical sense, an argument is a series of premises followed by a conclusion. You have presented a series of very questionable premises, but then say "this is a warning." Sorry, but that is not a conclusion.
Do you have the courage to take a stand and tell us what your conclusion is?
latinijral
04-09-2005, 06:08 AM
Will you please quote and link the evidence that support your new claim that Paidika might be a peer reviewed medical journal, based on the links I posted concerning this topic. .
Oh my god! You just quoted it yourself.
“To answer dr. Mabuses question on what kind of magazine 'paidika' is. It is a dutch peer-reviewed magazine on paedophilia.”
In the US, medical and scientific journals are called by the term "peer reviewed", not magazines. Pedophilia and other mental illnesses fall under the "medical" heading, so I put together your linked claim of "peer reviewed" with my knowledge of "peer reviewed journals" and chose medical.
So what exactly are you questioning me about? .
The only link you choose to defend your claim is this one:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum...00&whichpage=15
Is a quote from a skeptic member (SFN) from Netherlands (as he claims to be). That also contains a link.
Paidika is not an USA medical and scientific journal, unless you provide the evidence, to consider your interpretation to fix your defence,
Therefore, in any link I posted it says that Paidika might be or is “peer reviewed medical journal” as you claimed.
The same poster you are referring, posted a link to what he thinks is the original Paidika interview: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nud...nderwager2.html
Here is the quote to the link HE provided to the discussion : “ Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika,
a European pro-pedophile publication.”
Unless his English is worst than mine, I don’t think he will contradict himself.
It is very strange the web doesn’t have any source that agree with your thoughts.
But you can help with your own researchs. I know you are doing it.
Like Dr. Vern Bullough , the editor of Paidika? .
Is he a child psychologist? No, he isn't. So I wouldn't take my child to him..
He seems to be an expert in paedophilia. .He can advice you.
http://www.vernbullough.com/bulloug...um/contact.html
You can also ask him what Paidika is. It is up to you if you believe him or not.
latinijral
04-09-2005, 04:14 PM
latin, on IIDB people have posted links to sites with articles about sexuality which just "coincidentally" happen to be peppered with borderline child pornographic images. I have clicked on links to an article in the middle of a discussion of child sexuality only to find myself on a site with pictures of a child topless in the bathtub, or kids running around naked at a nudist camp.
You are talking about your particular experience.
You are lost in the concept of what are child pornographic images .
You need to define what is pornographic first.
My definition : explicit exhibition of sexual activity.
I don’t know what is IIDB. What kind of forum? Any link?
The person who posted his links on IIDB was reported to the FBI by many of the people reading the dicussion, and I bet Beth is thinking of him in particular.
Beth told us how she linked to child porn sites and how child porn images could be cached in her hard drive, and how she cleaned her cache.
I bet she will agree with you…………now.
Any evidence that the person was reported to the FBI?
Now, I've taken your warning into consideration and discarded it as poorly sourced and vague. Knowing your history with JREF, I also mistrust your motives and believe you are on a mission to poison the well against skeptic organizations because you have a grudge against James Randi for dimissing your claim to the Million Dollar Prize.
I never did a challenge or send a claim to the James Randi million dollar prize.
You can discuss that topic here :
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=202&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
I say this only to clarify my perspective on latin's risibile and totally played out innuendos about skeptics in the public eye and people like Beth who are a kind enough to engage him and smart enough to know just how full of shit he is.
Your perspective is full of mistakes. Read the above.
This topic is about a warning , and is with the evidence that is available on the web about the topic .If you can contribute with evidence that debunk the claims presented in the links, please do it. But until then , parents and children should be aware of it.
LadyShea
04-09-2005, 04:23 PM
The only link you choose to defend your claim is this one:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum...00&whichpage=15
Is a quote from a skeptic member (SFN) from Netherlands (as he claims to be). That also contains a link.
One more time. I based my speculations on the claims made by the links you provided and I carefully qualified my statements with words like "if". If YOUR sources aren't credible that is your problem.
I DID NOT MAKE A CLAIM.
Paidika is not an USA medical and scientific journal, unless you provide the evidence, to consider your interpretation to fix your defence,
Therefore, in any link I posted it says that Paidika might be or is “peer reviewed medical journal” as you claimed.
"Peer-reviewed scholarly journal". What does that mean to you?
Again, I didn't make a claim, I made an assumption based on what "peer reviewed" means and the subject matter.
Hows about you start providing evidence that it is a pro-pedophilia journal as I have asked?
The same poster you are referring, posted a link to what he thinks is the original Paidika interview: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nud...nderwager2.html
Here is the quote to the link HE provided to the discussion : “ Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika,
a European pro-pedophile publication.”
Unless his English is worst than mine, I don’t think he will contradict himself.
It is very strange the web doesn’t have any source that agree with your thoughts.
That is a some kind of blog or forum not a credible or authoritiative source. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IS A REAL INTERVIEW.
What are you not getting, TROLL!
But you can help with your own researchs. I know you are doing it.
You are a troll.
He seems to be an expert in paedophilia. .He can advice you.
http://www.vernbullough.com/bulloug...um/contact.html
Most of his papers and articles aren't about pedophilia at all, and when they are it is from the societal and historical perspective. He is not an expert in child therapy.
You can also ask him what Paidika is. It is up to you if you believe him or not.
Maybe I'll write him about your libelous and unsupported insinuations against him.
Anyway YOU MADE THE CLAIM that Paidika is a pro pedophilia publication of some kind. You need to prove it with more than insinuations and paranoia.
latinijral
04-09-2005, 06:16 PM
The only link you choose to defend your claim is this one:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum...00&whichpage=15
Is a quote from a skeptic member (SFN) from Netherlands (as he claims to be). That also contains a link.
One more time. I based my speculations on the claims made by the links you provided and I carefully qualified my statements with words like "if". If YOUR sources aren't credible that is your problem.
I DID NOT MAKE A CLAIM.
I bet your skeptic pals consider you and you consider yourself “credible” enough.
Paidika is not an USA medical and scientific journal, unless you provide the evidence, to consider your interpretation to fix your defence,
Therefore, in any link I posted it says that Paidika might be or is “peer reviewed medical journal” as you claimed.
Again, I didn't make a claim, I made an assumption based on what "peer reviewed" means and the subject matter.
You made an assumption to defend the skeptics mentioned in the OP based in a link that is not credible according to your own words.
Hows about you start providing evidence that it is a pro-pedophilia journal as I have asked?
How about you start providing credible evidence to support your assumption that Paidika is a “medical and scientifical journal”?
I posted the evidence that is available in the internet concerning this topic.
Please contribute with the credible links that support your assumption.
The same poster you are referring, posted a link to what he thinks is the original Paidika interview: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nud...nderwager2.html
Here is the quote to the link HE provided to the discussion : “ Dr. Ralph Underwager in this interview with Paidika,
a European pro-pedophile publication.”
Unless his English is worst than mine, I don’t think he will contradict himself.
It is very strange the web doesn’t have any source that agree with your thoughts.
That is a some kind of blog or forum not a credible or authoritiative source. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IS A REAL INTERVIEW.
This link posted in my OP http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html , have a reference of why Underwager resigned from the FMSF directory board.
If you still think is not authorative , you can contact the author, or debunk the claim.
Do you have any evidence of what you consider was the “real interview” at Paidika?
.
You can also ask him what Paidika is. It is up to you if you believe him or not.
Maybe I'll write him about your libelous and unsupported insinuations against him.
Anyway YOU MADE THE CLAIM that Paidika is a pro pedophilia publication of some kind. You need to prove it with more than insinuations and paranoia.
Any evidence that support your claim?
I just contributed with all the links available at the web relating Paidika./Bullough/Csicop/Underwager/peadophilia
If you can find more to back up your assumption, please provide it.
Remember , come back with the “real evidence” that Paidika is a “medical and scientific journal” as you assumed.
http://skeptech.net/emotipad/cache/Zzzz3.gif
What do you consider could be a not harmful child sexual experience with an adult? .
Although I have not read the study, maybe the idea is that it may not cause permanent psychological and emotional damage to the child that will carry on into his or her adulthood. .
That is just a definition of “not harmful”.
But you eluded to tell what kind/type of sexual experience would be that. :yawn: If you are a pedophile and wish for me to describe sexual encounters between adults and children, I think you should make your request elsewhere.
Don’t you think that the adult is always taking advantage over the child? Therefore it may never be an excuse for them? .
It isn't making an excuse for the offender. It is a matter of how to handle the therapy of the child.
It does help a parent to know that the child may not be harmed for life. A parent needs to know that the child can very possibly grow to become an unscarred adult, in spite of the sexual abuse. .
You said you have not read the study, then your response is out of base. :P I read summaries. My response may or may not be out of base.
Don’t you think that stating “sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser” is opening the possibility to a child to stay in silence after the abuse , giving the abuser more advantage? .
i know that over reacting with my children silence them in future matters and it takes time to gain their trust back. It is better not to overreact because that is very frightening to a child. Remaining level-headed and calm while handling matters in a supportive way is the best way to insure that a child will not be silenced in future matters. .
I wish you can provide some examples and evidence of what you considered and claimed : ““sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser”. :D
My own life. I had provided an example, but deleted it. I did not really wish to share my pain with you.
Dear lady , come back with the evidence that back up your friend’s claim.
Of course you will never provide it. How do I know? .
I simply stated someone's opinion, bub.
Dear lady, YOU wrote this: ” I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator”.
Read again about what I wrote .I was referring to your friend’s claim.
Dear bub,
If your friend claimed something ,and if you pretend to be a skeptic , I am sure you asked him for the evidence that supports his claim .
You forgot?
Oh no, another ingenuous action from your side. :innocent:[/quote]I took my friend's claim as an opinion. I also searched for hits on Riley G. I stated that the writing style was similar, as is your ineptness at English.
I am “reading your mind”……..you want to insult me …….again ,………….. because you don’t need to back up your claims………… you are an skeptic…….right?
I didn't make a claim, I stated someone's opinion. Now, if you are Uri Geller, I can look at your picture and say that you are a looker, but that is my opinion, other people may think Geller is butt ugly. I can look at his work and feel that I am inclined to believe that I follow along the school of thought that believes Geller is a charlatin. Notice how I was careful to word myself, I am aware of Geller's lawsuits.
Opinión? False. Read the above :it was about your friend’s claim.
Hmmmmm, see how I am reading your mind?
It is easy now ,like when you eluded before to mention the boards, of your previous claim, where you linked to those child porn sites.
U ( you) R(are) I (ingenuous)
And I like your type. :wave:
I think I need a shower. I suddenly feel all dirty and creeped out. Read my mind again, tell me what I'm thinking because you have yet to get it right.
Also, very clearly in specifics, define the meaning of this. "It is easy now ,like when you eluded before to mention the boards, of your previous claim, where you linked to those child porn sites. " Be very specific.
latin, on IIDB people have posted links to sites with articles about sexuality which just "coincidentally" happen to be peppered with borderline child pornographic images. I have clicked on links to an article in the middle of a discussion of child sexuality only to find myself on a site with pictures of a child topless in the bathtub, or kids running around naked at a nudist camp.
You are talking about your particular experience.
You are lost in the concept of what are child pornographic images .
You need to define what is pornographic first.
My definition : explicit exhibition of sexual activity.
I don’t know what is IIDB. What kind of forum? Any link? Your definition is not totaly in line with the legal definition. Liv is correct, Pat Kelly was one of the fuckers I was talking about, down to his sick fucker message board that little sick fuckers wrote about "fantasy" man-child relationships and discussed the "loving" way a pedophile nutures kiddies.
Beth told us how she linked to child porn sites and how child porn images could be cached in her hard drive, and how she cleaned her cache.
I bet she will agree with you…………now.
Any evidence that the person was reported to the FBI?".....now?" Bite me, bub.
[QUOTE]
Your perspective is full of mistakes. Read the above.
This topic is about a warning , and is with the evidence that is available on the web about the topic .If you can contribute with evidence that debunk the claims presented in the links, please do it. But until then , parents and children should be aware of it.For some reason, I feel a helluva lot more threatened by the thought of my kids coming across the likes of you. I wonder why. ........hmmm
John Carter
04-09-2005, 09:42 PM
Latinijral, are you ever going to have the courage to stand up and post a real conclusion? Or are you just a coward who hides behind so called "warnings", insinuation and innuendo? Come on, show us what kind of man you are! So far, all I've seen from you is the type of slime that hides in the shadows and tries to poison the well.
beyelzu
04-09-2005, 10:05 PM
beth, can you please refrain from calling shady cunt bub as some other posters around here occassionally call me bub as in beelzebub.
I find it distracting.
plus why use bub when you can use dipshit, shady cunt, shady, pisspoor english dude, sombrero penis, mexican penis hat man, etc...
plus I get a weird visual mixing you and wolverine, betherine if you will, with long admantium claws.
:)
latinijral
04-10-2005, 06:13 AM
That is just a definition of “not harmful”.
But you eluded to tell what kind/type of sexual experience would be that. .
If you are a pedophile and wish for me to describe sexual encounters between adults and children, I think you should make your request elsewhere. .
You are acting paranoid again .
Look how LadyShea responded without any fear. to the same question.: “adolescent males often find sexual relations with adult women a positive experience.
Consensual sex between an older teen and a younger adult are often long term and not harmful (such as a 16-year old and a 21-year old)”
You both supported the “scientific” study that claimed that “childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful.”
Some people would consider this kind of support you made, like pro-peadophilia .That is why I made the WARNING.
You said you have not read the study, then your response is out of base. .
I read summaries. My response may or may not be out of base. .
It is out of base.
I wish you can provide some examples and evidence of what you considered and claimed : ““sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser”. .
My own life. I had provided an example, but deleted it. I did not really wish to share my pain with you. .
With anyone , since you are claiming you deleted it.
If you are suffering a pain , I wish you can recover from it.
Dear lady, YOU wrote this: ” I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator”.
Read again about what I wrote .I was referring to your friend’s claim.
If your friend claimed something ,and if you pretend to be a skeptic , I am sure you asked him for the evidence that supports his claim .
You forgot?
Oh no, another ingenuous action from your side. .
I took my friend's claim as an opinion. I also searched for hits on Riley G. I stated that the writing style was similar, as is your ineptness at English. .
Those self confessed skeptics like you !!!! , every time they make a claim it is just an “opinion” , but if a believer make a claim or opinion you always demand for the evidence.
What contradictory you are.
So your friend and you were based on a fallacy, I understand.
Opinión? False. Read the above :it was about your friend’s claim.
Hmmmmm, see how I am reading your mind?
It is easy now ,like when you eluded before to mention the boards, of your previous claim, where you linked to those child porn sites.
U ( you) R(are) I (ingenuous)
And I like your type. .
I think I need a shower. I suddenly feel all dirty and creeped out. Read my mind again, tell me what I'm thinking because you have yet to get it right. .
You are thinking why U R I.
Also, very clearly in specifics, define the meaning of this. "It is easy now ,like when you eluded before to mention the boards, of your previous claim, where you linked to those child porn sites. " Be very specific. .
I asked you many times, to share here the names of the boards where you claimed you had a bad experience , in order to help the lurkers to don’t suffer the same bad experience . You refused.
You also claimed that you don’t need to back up your claims and admitted to be a skeptic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Originally Posted by livius drusus
latin, on IIDB people have posted links to sites with articles about sexuality which just "coincidentally" happen to be peppered with borderline child pornographic images. I have clicked on links to an article in the middle of a discussion of child sexuality only to find myself on a site with pictures of a child topless in the bathtub, or kids running around naked at a nudist camp.
-------------
You are talking about your particular experience.
You are lost in the concept of what are child pornographic images .
You need to define what is pornographic first.
My definition : explicit exhibition of sexual activity.
I don’t know what is IIDB. What kind of forum? Any link? .
Your definition is not totaly in line with the legal definition. Liv is correct, Pat Kelly was one of the fuckers I was talking about, down to his sick fucker message board that little sick fuckers wrote about "fantasy" man-child relationships and discussed the "loving" way a pedophile nutures kiddies. .
Share with us the legal definition of pornography . Of course it will be according to the laws of your country, not the same as Holland .
I told LIV in advance , now that LIV shared her experience , that you will “confess” it was the same board and guy.. (?).
What were you both doing on those topics and what kind of board was that ? Just visiting it or sharing your experience ?
Beth told us how she linked to child porn sites and how child porn images could be cached in her hard drive, and how she cleaned her cache.
I bet she will agree with you…………now.
Any evidence that the person was reported to the FBI? .
".....now?" Bite me, bub. .
Yeah yeah ,you mean you don’t have any evidence to support your claim…..my dear lady.
Your perspective is full of mistakes. Read the above.
This topic is about a warning , and is with the evidence that is available on the web about the topic .If you can contribute with evidence that debunk the claims presented in the links, please do it. But until then , parents and children should be aware of it. .
For some reason, I feel a helluva lot more threatened by the thought of my kids coming across the likes of you. I wonder why. ........hmmm.
You better get a real life and stop thinking all those skeptics deserve your time and efforts to defend them.
You might have what skeptic John Schumaker think : “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
Get a life.
beyelzu
04-10-2005, 06:25 AM
Ill be your huckleberry you fucking coward.
please not latin's new new nickname.
you want to play with me, latin?
I wont take your dipshittery nearly as even handedly as the nice folks around here.
xouper
04-10-2005, 08:58 AM
beyelzu: I wont take your dipshittery nearly as even handedly as the nice folks around here.
Which is exactly why he won't mess with you. You bite back. :)
The things latinijral says about Beth, for example, are not a reflection of her, but they sure say a lot about his lack of honor and credibility. We can all see what a dipshit he is in the way he treats people like Beth.
LadyShea
04-10-2005, 04:18 PM
I bet your skeptic pals consider you and you consider yourself “credible” enough.
I do not use myself or my friends as evidential support for claims. If I said "Cosmopolitan is a magazine for young women", I wouldn't link to a forum discussion to support that.
I would link to one of Cosmo's own websites (http://www.cosmomag.com/) or a Wikipedia artcle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitan_Magazine) or a magazine supscription site (http://www.magazineline.com/Public/cosmopolitan.htm) . I would not link to message boards, blogs, etc as sources because they are just opinions and can say anything they want.
Paidika may actually be exactly what you claim or what your friends claim, but you have not supported that adequately. All I am asking is for a credible source. Is that so difficult?
You made an assumption to defend the skeptics mentioned in the OP based in a link that is not credible according to your own words.
You provided the sources as support of your claim that Vern Bullough is a pedophile. I simply discussed the situation and made some alternative hypotheses based on your sources.
I don't know what Paidika is. I asked YOU to tell me exactly what it is, and you linked me to "sources" that said it was a "peer reviewed scholarly journal".
YOUR sources said "peer reviewed"; "Peer review (known as refereeing in some academic fields) is a scholarly process used in the publication of manuscripts and in the awarding of funding for research. Publishers and funding agencies use peer review to select and to screen submissions. The process also assists authors in meeting the standards of their discipline. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are liable to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields."
As far as I know, being a pedophile is not an academic field, profession, discipline nor funded for research--but being a psychologist is.
I made no claims, YOU DID. You claimed that Vern Bullough is editor of a pro Pedophilia journal and you supported that claim with uncredible sources. You went on to insinuate that he is therefore a pedohphile and by association so is Prometheus Books and James Randi.
I simply discussed the issue and proposed an alternative scenario that may be just as true because WE DON'T KNOW what Paidika is yet.
How about you start providing credible evidence to support your assumption that Paidika is a “medical and scientifical journal”?
I posted the evidence that is available in the internet concerning this topic.
Please contribute with the credible links that support your assumption.
Shifting the burden is not good debating style. You made the claim, you provided bad sources, I discussed your claim based on those sourced and proposed some alternatives. You made the claim, period.
Again, I admit I don't know what Paidika is, and neither do you. Based on the information you provided, you blindly accepted that it is a pro-pedophilia journal and I don't accept that. It may be, but I won't accept that based on crappy sources.
Your the one with an argument here, defend it instead of using these silly tactics.
This link posted in my OP http://www.heart7.net/fms-false-construct.html , have a reference of why Underwager resigned from the FMSF directory board.
If you still think is not authorative , you can contact the author, or debunk the claim.
Again, that is someone's personal webpage. It is not a known publication, expert in any field or authoritative in any way. A whole section is identical to the ones you linked to, almost identical to your OP- so, somone plagiarized someone else- and none of them are recognized experts or authorities on anything!
Are you really so confused as to what constitutes a credible source?
Do you have any evidence of what you consider was the “real interview” at Paidika?
I am not making a claim you are. I am crticizing your evidence. I have no way of knowing if an interview even took place, that could be a work of fiction.
Do you have any credible evidence? Experts? Authorities? Anything?
I just contributed with all the links available at the web relating Paidika./Bullough/Csicop/Underwager/peadophilia
All I have done is criticized your sources and your implied consclusions.
Remember , come back with the “real evidence” that Paidika is a “medical and scientific journal” as you assumed.
You come back with real evidence that it is not AND that it is a pro-pedophilia publication as you have been claiming. You may be right, I just want credible evidence that you are. If you prove me wrong I will certainly concede.
I made no claim, I posited a possible hypothesis/made an assumption for arguments sake.
LadyShea
04-10-2005, 04:26 PM
I will rephrase my position so as to put an end to this particular argument. Please notice the qualifiers...have someone who speaks English better than you do read it so you can understand that I am not making any claims (pay attention to the bolded qualifiers).
"If Paidika is a "peer reviewed scholarly journal" as stated in the links you, latinijral, provided, it seems much more likely that is a psychological (medical) journal, based on what I know of peer reviewed scholarly journals and the definitions and accepted usage of "peer review" and "scholarly"
That is just a definition of “not harmful”.
But you eluded to tell what kind/type of sexual experience would be that. .
If you are a pedophile and wish for me to describe sexual encounters between adults and children, I think you should make your request elsewhere. .
You are acting paranoid again .
Look how LadyShea responded without any fear. to the same question.: “adolescent males often find sexual relations with adult women a positive experience.
Consensual sex between an older teen and a younger adult are often long term and not harmful (such as a 16-year old and a 21-year old)”
You both supported the “scientific” study that claimed that “childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful.”
Bahaha. Reread your posts, cowboy. Anyhoo, I thought we were discussing pedophilia not an older teen having sex with an adult.
Some people would consider this kind of support you made, like pro-peadophilia .That is why I made the WARNING.
What support did I offer? I certainly am not pro-pedophilia. I notice the way you spell pedophilia. I would think that perhaps you are not in America. Perhaps Britian? Geller lives in the UK from what I understand. ;)
What WARNING did you provide? I have not seen you clearly define your WARNING.
You said you have not read the study, then your response is out of base. .
I read summaries. My response may or may not be out of base. (FYFR, the Merkin term is "off base".)
It is out of base.
Specifically point out how I am out of base, otherwise your critique holds no merit. If it truly is a pro-pedophilia publication, I would love to know. But if it is a publication that deals with the treatment of pedophiles and offers info to therapists in the healing of patients, I cannot think your claim is justified.
I wish you can provide some examples and evidence of what you considered and claimed : ““sometimes adult reactions cause more scars than the abuser”. .
My own life. I had provided an example, but deleted it. I did not really wish to share my pain with you. .
With anyone , since you are claiming you deleted it. No, people have read it. I deleted it before I saw that you had come back online. I thought you were perhaps shady enough to try to twist something against me.
If you are suffering a pain , I wish you can recover from it.
Thank you, but I am not suffering. I only suffer when I share too much with people whom I shouldn't.
Dear lady, YOU wrote this: ” I've been looking up things Riley G. has written, the writing style is very similar. I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator”.
Read again about what I wrote .I was referring to your friend’s claim.
If your friend claimed something ,and if you pretend to be a skeptic , I am sure you asked him for the evidence that supports his claim .
You forgot?
Oh no, another ingenuous action from your side. .
I took my friend's claim as an opinion. I also searched for hits on Riley G. I stated that the writing style was similar, as is your ineptness at English. .
Those self confessed skeptics like you !!!! , every time they make a claim it is just an “opinion” , but if a believer make a claim or opinion you always demand for the evidence.
What contradictory you are.
Good fucking dog, latinoirritant, I search the net and found all kinds of stuff the Riley G. guy had written. You both have a similar mastery of the English language, I might say. I argued with my friend that I thought you were someone else. As far as what you claim about skeptics, well, I am not quite in that school of thought. I accept that people have beliefs and I do not try to disprove their beliefs, unless the believer's claims infringe upon me or cause harm to others. I believe that there are charlitans who use mystical props to bilk people out of their money. I believe there are healers, both religious and psychic, who have made false claims of healing to the detriment of the victim. Those type of people are the type that I have no problem with being skeptical with and demanding proof.
So your friend and you were based on a fallacy, I understand. No, I am not based on fallacy, my dear bubba. I don't think my friend is either. I do think we try to be truthful.
Opinión? False. Read the above :it was about your friend’s claim.
Hmmmmm, see how I am reading your mind?
It is easy now ,like when you eluded before to mention the boards, of your previous claim, where you linked to those child porn sites.
U ( you) R(are) I (ingenuous)
And I like your type. .
I think I need a shower. I suddenly feel all dirty and creeped out. Read my mind again, tell me what I'm thinking because you have yet to get it right. .
You are thinking why U R I.Huh? Nope, wrong. At the time I was writing that, I was thinking of a number between one and ten. A six. Yesterday, I did not think about URI or you are ingenious once after making my post. Your psychic abilities fail you, my dear soothsayerwannabe. Or, perhaps at the mention of a shower, the blood left your brain and nulled your psychic abilities?
Also, very clearly in specifics, define the meaning of this. "It is easy now ,like when you eluded before to mention the boards, of your previous claim, where you linked to those child porn sites. " Be very specific. .
I asked you many times, to share here the names of the boards where you claimed you had a bad experience , in order to help the lurkers to don’t suffer the same bad experience . You refused. Ah, I see. First, I see no reason to provide you links to the boards considering the users have either been banned and links removed/ or threads deleted. I don't remember Pat Kelly's site, but it has this nice little message board in it full of pervs. Search and ye may find. You might enjoy trolling over there ...or perhaps enjoy sharing experience? :p
You also claimed that you don’t need to back up your claims and admitted to be a skeptic.
I don't have to back up something private. If I said that I live in Florida, I do not have to provide proof of address or a scan of my DL.
Share with us the legal definition of pornography . Of course it will be according to the laws of your country, not the same as Holland .
I told LIV in advance , now that LIV shared her experience , that you will “confess” it was the same board and guy.. (?). Well Liv mentioned one of the boards. So, if the mods end up having a handful with you, I can blame her! :p I won't offer the other two boards' names.
What were you both doing on those topics and what kind of board was that ? Just visiting it or sharing your experience ? Fuck you. I like arguing with slimey little pervs who like to hurt little kids and use the terminology of 'sharing love' to define their abuse. Or I did. I realized that I got too angry and rarely jump in. Last time I argued with a perv in II, I got an admin warning because I posted that I had reported the thread and poster and the poster's site to the FBI, and I think I may have done some insult slinging, as well.
".....now?" Bite me, bub. .
Yeah yeah ,you mean you don’t have any evidence to support your claim…..my dear lady My dear troll, as far as me notifying PK that I reported him to the FBI, it is in the IIDB archives to be found. Other than that, I will not supply the emails from my relative, not will I supply the name, nor will I request that he verify that I made reports. I think you might be daft to want the type of proof that you are requesting.
Your perspective is full of mistakes. Read the above.
This topic is about a warning , and is with the evidence that is available on the web about the topic .If you can contribute with evidence that debunk the claims presented in the links, please do it. But until then , parents and children should be aware of it. .
For some reason, I feel a helluva lot more threatened by the thought of my kids coming across the likes of you. I wonder why. ........hmmm.
You better get a real life and stop thinking all those skeptics deserve your time and efforts to defend them. Get a life, huh? I haven't spent the past year or two posting the same drivel.
You might have what skeptic John Schumaker think : “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
Get a life.Get bent(def. "get fucked"). You made an accusation that I have no life. You have insinuated a fallicious idea. :D
Please tell me what mental disorders that I am succeptable to because of skepticism. Any mental disorder that I have was much worse when I did believe in the oooooh so scary supernatural world.
beyelzu: I wont take your dipshittery nearly as even handedly as the nice folks around here.
Which is exactly why he won't mess with you. You bite back. :)
The things latinijral says about Beth, for example, are not a reflection of her, but they sure say a lot about his lack of honor and credibility. We can all see what a dipshit he is in the way he treats people like Beth.Thanks, xoup, I'm now finding his innuendos against me to be very funny.
I find myself laughing at them, rather than getting upset. I've forgotten the fun of troll feeding. :whup:
Share with us the legal definition of pornography . Of course it will be according to the laws of your country, not the same as Holland .Title 18 of the United States Code governs child pornography. See Chapter 110 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch110.html), Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children. 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.text.html) defines "Child pornography" as:
"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where -
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct . . ."
18 U.S.C. § 2252 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2252.text.html) prohibits the production, transportation, or knowing receipt or distribution of any visual depiction "of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." For the purposes of Title 18, 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.text.html) defines a "minor" as any person under the age of eighteen years, and "sexually explicit conduct" as actual or simulated:
"(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"
This (http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/lawand/papers/sp97/waters.html) Is a better explanation of the child porn laws.
Crumb
04-10-2005, 06:12 PM
I bet that'll lift his sombrero.
latinijral
04-10-2005, 10:44 PM
You are acting paranoid again .
Look how LadyShea responded without any fear. to the same question.: “adolescent males often find sexual relations with adult women a positive experience.
Consensual sex between an older teen and a younger adult are often long term and not harmful (such as a 16-year old and a 21-year old)”
You both supported the “scientific” study that claimed that “childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful.” .
Bahaha. Reread your posts, cowboy. Anyhoo, I thought we were discussing pedophilia not an older teen having sex with an adult. .
Reread the post cowgirl. It is about the “scientific study” you and LadyShea supported. The same study who states : “childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful.”.
Ask LadyShea why she gave that excuse of the older teens to support the study that was referring to childhood.
Some people would consider this kind of support you made, like pro-peadophilia .That is why I made the WARNING. .
What support did I offer? I certainly am not pro-pedophilia. I notice the way you spell pedophilia. I would think that perhaps you are not in America. Perhaps Britian? Geller lives in the UK from what I understand.
What WARNING did you provide? I have not seen you clearly define your WARNING. .
Again , you supported the “scientific study”. Read the above.
“It isn't making an excuse for the offender. It is a matter of how to handle the therapy of the child.” ( those are your words) and you also wrote you have not read the study. What a contradiction.
Are you till thinking in why URI.?
Some people would consider this kind of support , like pro-peadophilia .That is why I made the WARNING. Read again the OP and all the links posted that are available at the web about the topic.
It is out of base. .
Specifically point out how I am out of base, otherwise your critique holds no merit. If it truly is a pro-pedophilia publication, I would love to know. But if it is a publication that deals with the treatment of pedophiles and offers info to therapists in the healing of patients, I cannot think your claim is justified. .
You are out of base. based on your own words : “Although I have not read the study, maybe the idea is that it may not cause permanent psychological and emotional damage to the child that will carry on into his or her adulthood.”.
Unless you are a paranormal , to “read” without reading.
With anyone , since you are claiming you deleted it. .
No, people have read it. I deleted it before I saw that you had come back online. I thought you were perhaps shady enough to try to twist something against me. .
It will be impossible for you to prove it, then
Shady with you? Impossible. You need to prove it.
If you are suffering a pain , I wish you can recover from it. .
Thank you, but I am not suffering. I only suffer when I share too much with people whom I shouldn't. .
YW. Then you learned a lesson. You made me happy to read you are not suffering no more. Stay relax always.
Those self confessed skeptics like you !!!! , every time they make a claim it is just an “opinion” , but if a believer make a claim or opinion you always demand for the evidence.
What contradictory you are. .
Good fucking dog, latinoirritant, I search the net and found all kinds of stuff the Riley G. guy had written. You both have a similar mastery of the English language, I might say. I argued with my friend that I thought you were someone else. As far as what you claim about skeptics, well, I am not quite in that school of thought. I accept that people have beliefs and I do not try to disprove their beliefs, unless the believer's claims infringe upon me or cause harm to others. I believe that there are charlitans who use mystical props to bilk people out of their money. I believe there are healers, both religious and psychic, who have made false claims of healing to the detriment of the victim. Those type of people are the type that I have no problem with being skeptical with and demanding proof. .
I demand you a proof that I am Riley G ……… or URI
So your friend and you were based on a fallacy, I understand. .
No, I am not based on fallacy, my dear bubba. I don't think my friend is either. I do think we try to be truthful. .
Yeah , Yeah, my dear lady.
But no proofs , since skeptics don’t need to post evidence of their claims …..right? Only woo woos…right?
You are thinking why U R I. .
Huh? Nope, wrong. At the time I was writing that, I was thinking of a number between one and ten. A six. Yesterday, I did not think about URI or you are ingenious once after making my post. Your psychic abilities fail you, my dear soothsayerwannabe. Or, perhaps at the mention of a shower, the blood left your brain and nulled your psychic abilities? .
You didn’t get it?
You were thinking WHY….. U (you) R (are) I (ingenuous), See how I can read your mind?
I asked you many times, to share here the names of the boards where you claimed you had a bad experience , in order to help the lurkers to don’t suffer the same bad experience . You refused. .
Ah, I see. First, I see no reason to provide you links to the boards considering the users have either been banned and links removed/ or threads deleted. I don't remember Pat Kelly's site, but it has this nice little message board in it full of pervs. Search and ye may find. You might enjoy trolling over there ...or perhaps enjoy sharing experience? :p.
You and Livious Drusus are the one who confessed here , that you like to share your time with pervs at that board.
I prefer to demonstrate how self confessed sKeptics are always in contradiction.
You also claimed that you don’t need to back up your claims and admitted to be a skeptic. .
I don't have to back up something private. If I said that I live in Florida, I do not have to provide proof of address or a scan of my DL. .
Were those perv sites/boards you “visited”……… private?
Share with us the legal definition of pornography . Of course it will be according to the laws of your country, not the same as Holland .
I told LIV in advance , now that LIV shared her experience , that you will “confess” it was the same board and guy.. (?)..
Well Liv mentioned one of the boards. So, if the mods end up having a handful with you, I can blame her! :p I won't offer the other two boards' names.
More pervs sites and boards?Hmmmmmm.
[QUOTE=latinijral]
What were you both doing on those topics and what kind of board was that ? Just visiting it or sharing your experience ? .
Fuck you. I like arguing with slimey little pervs who like to hurt little kids and use the terminology of 'sharing love' to define their abuse. Or I did. I realized that I got too angry and rarely jump in. Last time I argued with a perv in II, I got an admin warning because I posted that I had reported the thread and poster and the poster's site to the FBI, and I think I may have done some insult slinging, as well. .
Any evidence to back up your claim?
Yeah yeah ,you mean you don’t have any evidence to support your claim…..my dear lady.
My dear troll, as far as me notifying PK that I reported him to the FBI, it is in the IIDB archives to be found. Other than that, I will not supply the emails from my relative, not will I supply the name, nor will I request that he verify that I made reports. I think you might be daft to want the type of proof that you are requesting. .
So you don’t have any proof of anything?
You better get a real life and stop thinking all those skeptics deserve your time and efforts to defend them. .
Get a life, huh? I haven't spent the past year or two posting the same drivel. .
I am not defending them . You are….but…… without any evidence to back up your defence.
You might have what skeptic John Schumaker think : “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
Get a life. .
Get bent(def. "get fucked"). You made an accusation that I have no life. You have insinuated a fallicious idea.
Please tell me what mental disorders that I am succeptable to because of skepticism. Any mental disorder that I have was much worse when I did believe in the oooooh so scary supernatural world. .
Ask self confessed John Schumaker ( Prometheus Books) why he wrote that. Debunk him. “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
Your life now are your efforts to defend some self confessed skeptics, that some people would presume they are pro-paedophilia, according to all the evidence available until now,…………. but without providing any evidence that support your defence.
xouper
04-11-2005, 12:01 AM
latinijral: Any evidence to back up your claim?latinijral: So you don’t have any proof of anything?
What a moron.
beyelzu
04-11-2005, 12:51 AM
latinijral: Any evidence to back up your claim?latinijral: So you don’t have any proof of anything?
What a moron.
yep, add it to the list of possible nicks for latin.
:)
John Carter
04-11-2005, 12:57 AM
How about "cowardly slimeball"? I think it fits him quite well.
latinijral
04-11-2005, 02:03 AM
Quote:
latinijral: Any evidence to back up your claim?
Quote:
latinijral: So you don’t have any proof of anything?
What a moron.
You ARE paying attention to me!!! ……… What a liar.
I knew you were a “coward skeptic” , but now you lied to yourself and to the board :
Originally Posted by XOUPER :
”Those of us who are familiar with the tactics of "latinijral" on other forums no longer pay any attention to him or his specious rantings. “.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2203&page=6&pp=25&onlybyuserid=0
Keep” ignoring” me.
.
Relax, join your piss off “skeptic” pals.
And don’t forget to keep reading me………….. at……………… here :
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=202&start=40&sid=a31a8335ac5ebd1ac8d14599cbff00e6
xouper
04-11-2005, 04:27 AM
There is probably no point in trying to explain to latinijral the difference between "troll plinking" and "paying attention". After all, English is not his native language and so it's not fair to expect him to understand these nuances. This is sufficiently evidenced by his repeated failure to understand the rules of the JREF million dollar challenge despite the plethora of explanations given him.
:trolling:
Ensign Steve
04-11-2005, 04:46 AM
The million dollar challenge? That's the one where Randi will give a million dollars to anybody that can prove that Vern Bullough is a pedophile. Right? :scratch:
Reread the post cowgirl. It is about the “scientific study” you and LadyShea supported. The same study who states : “childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful.”.
Ask LadyShea why she gave that excuse of the older teens to support the study that was referring to childhood. I did not support the study, pahtna, I posed the idea that the study may be used to treat peds and the victims. I still cannot find the entire study, unless it is hidden in one of your posts. I have textbooks upon textbooks on abnormal psyche and about the treatment of sexually abused children. In the long term, if sexual abuse is brought out in the open and treated in a way that does not further scar the child, a child can possibly heal.
Now, I would question the study if they say they are not usually harmful. I would have to see the age group that they studied. If they thought that a man having sex with a little girl is not harmful, then they are fucking insane, because a girl is being ripped open long before sexual maturity and the pain is blinding. I would think the same with anal penetration with a little boy. If they say that this sexual violation is not harmful in children, say,under twelve or thirteen, at least, then I would highly suspect the study. But I have not read the study. I would like to read the study, rather than just see one see part of one sentence from it.
Again , you supported the “scientific study”. Read the above.
“It isn't making an excuse for the offender. It is a matter of how to handle the therapy of the child.” ( those are your words) and you also wrote you have not read the study. What a contradiction. I was speaking according to other info that I had seen from other posters. I would think that rather this study be supporting a group like NAMBLA, it would help in the therapy of a child as well as the treatment of a pedophile. I did not support pedophilia. I neither support, nor am I in opposition to the study.
Are you till thinking in why URI.? I honestly don't understand. Every time I see this, it seems even more bizzare. Please specifically explain the signifigance of "why URI"
Some people would consider this kind of support , like pro-peadophilia .That is why I made the WARNING. Read again the OP and all the links posted that are available at the web about the topic.
About the topic, but does it link directly to the study? I don't want to read about it, I want the actual study.
You are out of base. based on your own words : “Although I have not read the study, maybe the idea is that it may not cause permanent psychological and emotional damage to the child that will carry on into his or her adulthood.”.
Unless you are a paranormal , to “read” without reading.
I still don't think I am off base to speculate that good might come from a study on pedophilia.
It will be impossible for you to prove it, then
Shady with you? Impossible. You need to prove it.
Your initial posts to me were shady enough.
[quote]
I demand you a proof that I am Riley G ……… or URI Well, I have none, so I leave the option open, but it is oh so fun to speculate. :D
Yeah , Yeah, my dear lady.
But no proofs , since skeptics don’t need to post evidence of their claims …..right? Only woo woos…right? I did not make a claim...I only speculated. I don't know who you are. I can only say that the writing style is very similar. I don't see how that is dishonest of fallicious on my part.
You didn’t get it?
You were thinking WHY….. U (you) R (are) I (ingenuous), See how I can read your mind? I still do not get it. I am thinking why I am ingenious? Nope. And yesterday when I wrote this, I was thinking about having to stick my hands in poor bloody ground up cow and minced onion and garlic to form patties so that we could have a family cook out that I would not eat. I certainly was not thinking of being ingenious I was feeling ethical conflict over preparing a food for my family that I am opposed to eating on moral grounds.
Right now, I'll go ahead and tell you, my mind in on autopilot, wondering when the coffee will be done.
You and Livious Drusus are the one who confessed here , that you like to share your time with pervs at that board.
I prefer to demonstrate how self confessed sKeptics are always in contradiction.I am not spending time with pervs. It is a large board. Normally I stumble across such threads on accident, sometimes if I saw such a thread, I would jump right in in fury to tell the ped my experience and pain and to let him know what scum I think he is. Then I realized that only fed a predatory mind.
i must say you URI obsession is really creepy. Leads me to wonder the state of your mind.
Were those perv sites/boards you “visited”……… private? Huh? You twist again. You know, this was in reference to private correspondance with my relative. You still claimed that I did not show proof to support the claim that I made reports to the FBI. The other boards are small boards that friends run. They were upset about the links, very upset, but I don't think that I should give you the URL's. One is a site for support of victims of sexual abuse. If you went in there posting your stuff it would cause a lot of upset. Especially if you started posting innuendo about the posters.
More pervs sites and boards?Hmmmmmm.
See? Why won't I give someone like you links to those sites?
Any evidence to back up your claim? Yup, and you may search for it.
So you don’t have any proof of anything? I do think you are mentally innept. Go search the archives and ye shall find. Otherwise, I do not need to provide proof of private correspondance, anymore than I would have to provide proof of address when I make the claim that I am a Floridian.
I am not defending them . You are….but…… without any evidence to back up your defence. I am not defending them, either. But, I have seen attacks on Randi before that were really silly. I realize that there are people who really, really dislike him because he puts a damper on their scams.
Ask self confessed John Schumaker ( Prometheus Books) why he wrote that. Debunk him. “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
You are making insinuations again.
Your life now are your efforts to defend some self confessed skeptics, that some people would presume they are pro-paedophilia, according to all the evidence available until now,…………. but without providing any evidence that support your defence.
Look bubba, my initial posts in here were about child porn. Then to defend myself against insinuations you made against me. I also made a statement that sometimes adult reactions to abuse can sometimes be more harmful than the actual abuse. You seemed to think that statement was both unfounded and pro-pedophilia.
You are the one that has spent a year or two, at least, pushing the same stuff on a couple of boards.
Dingfod
04-11-2005, 02:22 PM
There is probably no point in trying to explain to latinijral the difference between "troll plinking" and "paying attention". After all, English is not his native language and so it's not fair to expect him to understand these nuances.No, it's not fair, coming from a Hungarian-Austrian-Israeli background, living in the UK, American english nuances can be quite hard to read.
latinijral
04-12-2005, 02:11 AM
Reread the post cowgirl. It is about the “scientific study” you and LadyShea supported. The same study who states : “childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful.”.
Ask LadyShea why she gave that excuse of the older teens to support the study that was referring to childhood..
I did not support the study, pahtna, I posed the idea that the study may be used to treat peds and the victims. I still cannot find the entire study, unless it is hidden in one of your posts. I have textbooks upon textbooks on abnormal psyche and about the treatment of sexually abused children..
You claimed something without reading the study.Ask LadyShea for help. She wrote some contradictions about it...like you.
Again , you supported the “scientific study”. Read the above.
“It isn't making an excuse for the offender. It is a matter of how to handle the therapy of the child.” ( those are your words) and you also wrote you have not read the study. What a contradiction..
I was speaking according to other info that I had seen from other posters. I would think that rather this study be supporting a group like NAMBLA, it would help in the therapy of a child as well as the treatment of a pedophile. I did not support pedophilia. I neither support, nor am I in opposition to the study. .
You are supporting skeptics that according to all the evidence available at the web , people can think they are pro.peadophilia.
Your support is based on what anonimous posters and not authorative persons, who also had not read the study ,tell to you ; and not because you have read the study.
What an ingenious way to support something, while other kind of people who had read the study , like congessmen in USA find it very pro-peadophila.
Are you till thinking in why URI.?.
I honestly don't understand. Every time I see this, it seems even more bizzare. Please specifically explain the signifigance of "why URI".
Again?
Some people would consider this kind of support , like pro-peadophilia .That is why I made the WARNING. Read again the OP and all the links posted that are available at the web about the topic.
.
About the topic, but does it link directly to the study? I don't want to read about it, I want the actual study..
Go find it and read it.Ask LadyShea about it. Then come back with the evidence that support your previous assumption.
You are out of base. based on your own words : “Although I have not read the study, maybe the idea is that it may not cause permanent psychological and emotional damage to the child that will carry on into his or her adulthood.”.
Unless you are a paranormal , to “read” without reading.
.
I still don't think I am off base to speculate that good might come from a study on pedophilia..
Just because you want to defend those skeptics, you just did it without reading.
Why URI?
It will be impossible for you to prove it, then
Shady with you? Impossible. You need to prove it.
.
Your initial posts to me were shady enough..
Prove it.
I demand you a proof that I am Riley G ……… or URI.
Well, I have none, so I leave the option open, but it is oh so fun to speculate. :D.
That is a common attitude of pseudo skeptics and true believers . To make a claim and to don't provide the evidence. :wave:
Yeah , Yeah, my dear lady.
But no proofs , since skeptics don’t need to post evidence of their claims …..right? Only woo woos…right?.
I did not make a claim...I only speculated. I don't know who you are. I can only say that the writing style is very similar. I don't see how that is dishonest of fallicious on my part. .
Bwaaaaaahahahahahah. First you said it was a claim , then that it was just an opinion , now that is just an speculation.
Typical from pseudo skeptics. :yawn:
You didn’t get it?
You were thinking WHY….. U (you) R (are) I (ingenuous), See how I can read your mind?.
I still do not get it. I am thinking why I am ingenious? Nope. .
Any evidence?
"Every time I see this, it seems even more bizzare."
You and Livious Drusus are the one who confessed here , that you like to share your time with pervs at that board.
I prefer to demonstrate how self confessed sKeptics are always in contradiction..
I am not spending time with pervs. It is a large board. Normally I stumble across such threads on accident, sometimes if I saw such a thread, I would jump right in in fury to tell the ped my experience and pain and to let him know what scum I think he is. Then I realized that only fed a predatory mind. .
Any evidence?Or it is "private"?
Were those perv sites/boards you “visited”……… private?.
Huh? You twist again..
Any evidence?
Any evidence to back up your claim? .
Yup, and you may search for it. .
The borden of proof is on your side. You made the claim.
So you don’t have any proof of anything?.
I do think you are mentally innept. Go search the archives and ye shall find. Otherwise, I do not need to provide proof of private correspondance, anymore than I would have to provide proof of address when I make the claim that I am a Floridian. .
Who Is asking you proof of private correspondence?Nahhhhhhh, you are lost....again
I am not defending them . You are….but…… without any evidence to back up your defence..
I am not defending them, either. But, I have seen attacks on Randi before that were really silly. I realize that there are people who really, really dislike him because he puts a damper on their scams. .
There are other skeptic people involved in the links available at the web.
Ask self confessed John Schumaker ( Prometheus Books) why he wrote that. Debunk him. “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
.
You are making insinuations again..
About what Schumaker wrote? Nope , it is real. You can buy the book..[/QUOTE]
Your life now are your efforts to defend some self confessed skeptics, that some people would presume they are pro-paedophilia, according to all the evidence available until now,…………. but without providing any evidence that support your defence.
Look bubba, my initial posts in here were about child porn. Then to defend myself against insinuations you made against me. I also made a statement that sometimes adult reactions to abuse can sometimes be more harmful than the actual abuse. You seemed to think that statement was both unfounded and pro-pedophilia..
I told you tha your statements were unfounded.....without any evidence to support it ....... YES ...... but that I accused you of pro-peadophilia ..NOPE.
I only beware you that some people would think those kinds of actions are pro-peadophilia.
Like in the OP warning I made.
You are the one that has spent a year or two, at least, pushing the same stuff on a couple of boards.
I know were you spent your time.
beyelzu
04-12-2005, 02:15 AM
whats up latin baby,
I have missed you, shady cunt.
it is a shame that you dont spend more time around here.
no, really.
Dingfod
04-12-2005, 03:56 AM
You are supporting skeptics that according to all the evidence available at the web , people can think they are pro.peadophilia.Thankfully, the web isn't a court of law. Like my old 6th grade teacher said "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see." Sage advice.
Your support is based on what anonimous posters and not authorative persons, who also had not read the study ,tell to you ; and not because you have read the study. I don't think you've read it either. Prove it. Post the "study". I dare you, coward. You're afraid of what isn't in it.
That is a common attitude of pseudo skeptics and true believers . To make a claim and to don't provide the evidence. :wave: You don't know jack shit about skepticism. It isn't the skeptic that needs to provide evidence, it is the one making the claim that needs to back it up. Remember that.
Beth only said she and her friend SUSPECT you are RileyG. I SUSPECT you are Uri Geller because of your hatred for James Randi et al and your language difficulties, but since I don't have proof, I can't say for 100% certainty, so I admit, you could just be some third world jackass that has a grudge against James Randi. Build any free energy machines lately? Got magnets in your shoes? Done any psychic surgery lately? Don't need a million dollars? Have you filed for bankruptcy to escape paying a court ordered settlement? Inquiring minds want to know.
Typical from pseudo skeptics. :yawn:Typical from idiots that make fantastic claims but can't back them up. :yawn:
Any evidence?
"Every time I see this, it seems even more bizzare." Every time you post, it seems even more bizarre.
Any evidence?Yeah, any actual evidence?
/me looks around
Nope.
The borden of proof is on your side. You made the claim.Borden of proof? Lizzy Borden left behind a bloody ax, is that the ax you're trying to grind? Oh, you probably meant burden of proof. That's not the way it supposedly works. If YOU make accusations and claims, then YOU need to provide the evidence. So far, nothing.
/me taps foot over and over and over again, waiting for evidence
About what Schumaker wrote? Nope , it is real. You can buy the book..That's not the way it works. You can't say "Read the book." You provide the evidence. You haven't done it at all yet. Post the study, quotes from the book with footnotes, whatever, just post something credible and you'll sway even the most skeptical among us.
I told you tha your statements were unfounded.....without any evidence to support it ....... YES ...... but that I accused you of pro-peadophilia ..NOPE.Bzzzzzt! Wrong! You definitely insinuated such about Beth and livius. Even in this post I'm quoting you accuse them of hanging out with pervs.
I only beware you that some people would think those kinds of actions are pro-peadophilia.
Like in the OP warning I made.What warning? And how does it apply to Freethought-Forum? James Randi, CSICOP, and the others don't have a damn thing to do with this site. What are we supposed to do? A good warning always includes what to do? I'm scared. I want you to give me a step by step guide of what to do. I'm looking for guidance here, but you just tell me to buy a book. Fuck books, I can't read books. I can't afford books. I don't have time to read anything more than a post or two in a message board.
You are the one that has spent a year or two, at least, pushing the same stuff on a couple of boards.
I know were you spent your time."There you go again."--Ronald Reagan
"Nuts!"--Brigadier General McAuliffe in Bastogne, France, Dec. 22, 1944
latinijral
04-12-2005, 06:40 AM
You are supporting skeptics that according to all the evidence available at the web , people can think they are pro.peadophilia.
Thankfully, the web isn't a court of law. Like my old 6th grade teacher said "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see." Sage advice.
So don’t get piss off . Relax.
Your support is based on what anonimous posters and not authorative persons, who also had not read the study ,tell to you ; and not because you have read the study.
I don't think you've read it either. Prove it. Post the "study". I dare you, coward. You're afraid of what isn't in it.
I am not the one claiming “that the study may be used to treat peds and the victims” without reading the study.
Are you still piss off? Relax.,,,,,,,pseudoskeptic.
That is a common attitude of pseudo skeptics and true believers . To make a claim and to don't provide the evidence.
You don't know jack shit about skepticism. It isn't the skeptic that needs to provide evidence, it is the one making the claim that needs to back it up. Remember that.
So you are trying to say that sceptics NEVER make a claim , they are just “innocent people” who just make “opinions” , “accusations” , “speculations” without providing any evidence. Poor skeptics .
Beth only said she and her friend SUSPECT you are RileyG. I SUSPECT you are Uri Geller because of your hatred for James Randi et al and your language difficulties, but since I don't have proof, I can't say for 100% certainty
I bet you are 99% sure …like Kramer/JREF
Beth wrote that her friend CLAIMED I was Riley G ( “I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator”.)
I wrote both of you are URI……..you know what I mean. Read again what the initials stand for.
Typical from pseudo skeptics.
Typical from idiots that make fantastic claims but can't back them up.
Are you talking to your mirror?
The borden of proof is on your side. You made the claim.
Borden of proof? Lizzy Borden left behind a bloody ax, is that the ax you're trying to grind? Oh, you probably meant burden of proof.
Thanks for the typo English correction. The burden of proof is on her side and in your side.
Wait ! You “never” make claims. Yeah , Yeah……sure……….( add some sarcastic tone)
About what Schumacher wrote? Nope , it is real. You can buy the book..
That's not the way it works. You can't say "Read the book." You provide the evidence. You haven't done it at all yet. Post the study, quotes from the book with footnotes, whatever, just post something credible and you'll sway even the most skeptical among us.
Read the book. The author : skeptic John Schumaker ( Prometheus Books) His theory : “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
Prove me wrong………..or…….. stay relax or you will become Napoleon.Bwaaaaaaahahahahaha.
I told you tha your statements were unfounded.....without any evidence to support it ....... YES ...... but that I accused you of pro-peadophilia ..NOPE.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong! You definitely insinuated such about Beth and livius. Even in this post I'm quoting you accuse them of hanging out with pervs.
Where is that quote? You forgot it?Accusing them ? Nahhhhhh. Come back with the quote. They confessed how they shared their time with those pervs on that board.
By LIV “I have clicked on links to an article in the middle of a discussion of child sexuality only to find myself on a site with pictures of a child topless in the bathtub, or kids running around naked at a nudist çamp.”
By Beth :• First, I see no reason to provide you links to the boards considering the users have either been banned and links removed/ or threads deleted. I don't remember Pat Kelly's site, but it has this nice little message board in it full of pervs”.
I only beware you that some people would think those kinds of actions are pro-peadophilia.
Like in the OP warning I made.
What warning? And how does it apply to Freethought-Forum? James Randi, CSICOP, and the others don't have a damn thing to do with this site. What are we supposed to do? A good warning always includes what to do? I'm scared. I want you to give me a step by step guide of what to do. I'm looking for guidance here, but you just tell me to buy a book. Fuck books, I can't read books. I can't afford books. I don't have time to read anything more than a post or two in a message board.
Then if you don’t want to read about this topic , go somewhere else. Get a life.
I know were you spent your time.
"There you go again."--Ronald Reagan
Are you still here?
I am inviting you now , just meet some self confessed skeptics that are not able to back up their claims.
Ask Skeptoid , he is still waiting for an answer on that board.
Don’t ask Xouper , he prefer to blame about that forum on another forums. He is coward to do it there.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=202&start=40
John Carter
04-12-2005, 07:41 AM
He is coward to do it there.
As far as I can tell, you are the coward here. Stop hiding behind insinuation and innuendo; this is the mark of a true coward. Where are your cojones? The only way you can change my opinion is to stand up and post a complete argument, which means you need to have a conclusion.
Trinity
04-12-2005, 09:39 AM
I have read the entire thread. I have followed your links. Conclusion: latin, you are a double-talking, shit-stirring fucktard. You want evidence? Final proof? I don't need to provide it. You already have. Repeatedly.
To everyone else, have fun baiting the moron. ;)
reprise
04-12-2005, 09:45 AM
Same shit, different day.
reprise
04-12-2005, 09:59 AM
I have read the entire thread. I have followed your links. Conclusion: latin, you are a double-talking, shit-stirring fucktard. You want evidence? Final proof? I don't need to provide it. You already have. Repeatedly.
To everyone else, have fun baiting the moron. ;)
Unless Randi has a hidden bank account in the Bermuda triangle, he simply couldn't have afforded to have paid off or otherwised influenced all of the international legal authorities to which these alleged offences have been reported - unless they took place in Area 51 and the US government is covering them up so we don't discover the alien bodies (did Randi have sex with underage aliens, too?).
Trinity
04-12-2005, 10:09 AM
I have read the entire thread. I have followed your links. Conclusion: latin, you are a double-talking, shit-stirring fucktard. You want evidence? Final proof? I don't need to provide it. You already have. Repeatedly.
To everyone else, have fun baiting the moron. ;)
Unless Randi has a hidden bank account in the Bermuda triangle, he simply couldn't have afforded to have paid off or otherwised influenced all of the international legal authorities to which these alleged offences have been reported - unless they took place in Area 51 and the US government is covering them up so we don't discover the alien bodies (did Randi have sex with underage aliens, too?).
Well Randi could have a Swiss bank account, but that is a moot point. I was simply pointing out that latin has provided the proof of being a fucktard, in every post he/she has made in this thread. :yup:
Dingfod
04-12-2005, 05:53 PM
Well Randi could have a Swiss bank account, but that is a moot point. I was simply pointing out that latin has provided the proof of being a fucktard, in every post he/she has made in this thread. :yup:
I know, but isn't he a really good fucktard?
Crumb
04-12-2005, 06:03 PM
He has fucktardness down to an art. An award winning :asshat: he is.
Dingfod
04-12-2005, 06:21 PM
So don’t get piss off . Relax.You have no idea how relaxed I was when I wrote that post, it's actually kind of fun engaging trolls like you. You piss off, shithead.
I am not the one claiming “that the study may be used to treat peds and the victims” without reading the study.
Are you still piss off? Relax.,,,,,,,pseudoskeptic.I am relaxed, you arrogant fucking piss ant.
So you are trying to say that sceptics NEVER make a claim , they are just “innocent people” who just make “opinions” , “accusations” , “speculations” without providing any evidence. Poor skeptics .Keep up, fuckwad.
I bet you are 99% sure …like Kramer/JREF
Beth wrote that her friend CLAIMED I was Riley G ( “I asked a friend to look at this thread to see if it was Uri, and my friend claimed it was Riley G, psychic investigator”.)
I wrote both of you are URI……..you know what I mean. Read again what the initials stand for.Yes, I do know what they stand for, dipshit.
U = You
R = Reek
I = Immensely
Are you talking to your mirror?Are you talking out of your ass? That "I'm rubber and you're glue" thing worked so well IN THE FOURTH GRADE!
Wait ! You “never” make claims. Yeah , Yeah……sure……….( add some sarcastic tone)Come over to my house and say that, dumbfuck.
About what Schumacher wrote? Nope , it is real. You can buy the book.. Read the book. The author : skeptic John Schumaker ( Prometheus Books)I thought Prometheus Books was eeeeeeeevil.
His theory : “Sceptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.It is hilarious when you repeat yourself. Name the mental disorders, then prove they occur more often in skeptics than in idiots that believe in supernatural woowoo bullshit.
Prove me wrong………..or…….. stay relax or you will become Napoleon.Bwaaaaaaahahahahaha.Oh, now URI fucking comedian. Works pretty well for those "staged" stage perfomances, doesn't it?
Where is that quote? You forgot it?You're the one telling everyone to just read the book. I say read the thread very carefully. You might even want to get fourth grader to read it to you in a way you can understand what you've already said.
Accusing them ? Nahhhhhh. Come back with the quote. They confessed how they shared their time with those pervs on that board.
By LIV “I have clicked on links to an article in the middle of a discussion of child sexuality only to find myself on a site with pictures of a child topless in the bathtub, or kids running around naked at a nudist çamp.”
By Beth :• First, I see no reason to provide you links to the boards considering the users have either been banned and links removed/ or threads deleted. I don't remember Pat Kelly's site, but it has this nice little message board in it full of pervs”.*
I only beware you that some people would think those kinds of actions are pro-peadophilia.
Like in the OP warning I made.*
Then if you don’t want to read about this topic, go somewhere else. Get a life.Let's see, who has a weird obsession. Is it me? No. Is it someone else that's posted in this thread besides latin? No. Hmmm, someone else needs to get a life and quit poking their Mexican Penis Hat into places where they are not welcome.
Are you still here?I live here. You're in MY living room. You get out, you pesky vermin. Go on, git!
I am inviting you now , just meet some self confessed skeptics that are not able to back up their claims.
Ask Skeptoid , he is still waiting for an answer on that board.
Don’t ask Xouper , he prefer to blame about that forum on another forums. He is coward to do it there.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=202&start=40
I can tell already that Xouper and Skeptoid are really really impressed with you and your claims. I already have infinitely more confidence in what they tell me than anything you can say.
*Reference: Ronald Reagan quote previously posted.
Bye!
You claimed something without reading the study.Ask LadyShea for help. She wrote some contradictions about it...like you. Have you read the damn study? Because I asked you to provide either the study or more of the study for example. I wonder if you are off base, yerself, cowboy. Claiming shit about things you really don't know possitively about.
You are supporting skeptics that according to all the evidence available at the web , people can think they are pro.peadophilia.
Your support is based on what anonimous posters and not authorative persons, who also had not read the study ,tell to you ; and not because you have read the study.
What an ingenious way to support something, while other kind of people who had read the study , like congessmen in USA find it very pro-peadophila. I cannot find the study. The authoratative persons you mention really don't seem to be all that authoritative, in my perspective. I ask you again, did you read the entire study?
Again? You never even implicitly explained it to me. Explicitly, articulately, and in detail, please explain this phrase because it makes no sense to me at all. Not in any language or slang that I am aware of. It sounds like a nonsense phrase that I would read about in my abnormal psyche texts.
Go find it and read it.Ask LadyShea about it. Then come back with the evidence that support your previous assumption. I have searched, it is not available or searchable online, obviously, unlike the archived posts that I said you were welcome to search for.
Just because you want to defend those skeptics, you just did it without reading. I did not defend anyone, nor did I initially post about your WARNING till you implicitly accused me of pedophilia.
Why URI? Now, I truly do not understand. Why do you have this bizzare phrase and acronym at the the end of you claim that I defended skeptics?
Prove it. As one could say, the proof is in the pudding. The proof is plainly there in your posts to me.
That is a common attitude of pseudo skeptics and true believers . To make a claim and to don't provide the evidence. :wave: I did not make a claim. I was trying to guess. You obviously are inept at English. The proof lies with your lack of ability to correspond with me in an articulate fashion.
Bwaaaaaahahahahahah. First you said it was a claim , then that it was just an opinion , now that is just an speculation.
Typical from pseudo skeptics. :yawn: What the bloody heck? You are looking more and more dumb. I feel kind of bad for you right now. :(
Any evidence?
"Every time I see this, it seems even more bizzare." :( again, you are evoking more pity from me than scorn. I don't like mocking mentally challenged people. I'll try to be nicer to you from now on because you can't help it, I think.
Any evidence?Or it is "private"?
:( :chin:
Huh? You twist again..
Any evidence?[/quote] :( :chin:
The borden of proof is on your side. You made the claim. :( I'm sorry, hon, but I have no burden of proof to bear. I'm sorry that you are unable to understand that. I am not sure how to show you that because even my children can understand this. I forgot how I would explain or make an example of this at a younger age.
Who Is asking you proof of private correspondence?Nahhhhhhh, you are lost....again Yes, you asked me for proof of a private correspondance between a family member and myself.
There are other skeptic people involved in the links available at the web. I don't think I mentioned anyone other than Randi. :chin:
About what Schumaker wrote? Nope , it is real. You can buy the book..No you are making insinuations about my mental health. I am not the one who is posting as if he is a paranoid schizotypal-type, repeating nonsense phrases such as "why URI?" expecting them to make sense to others.:(
I told you tha your statements were unfounded.....without any evidence to support it ....... YES ...... but that I accused you of pro-peadophilia ..NOPE. You implied such. You made implicit insinuations to that.
I only beware you that some people would think those kinds of actions are pro-peadophilia.
Like in the OP warning I made. Most people would see no point in such a warning because they would recognise that it is not the case.
I know were you spent your time.
No, I don't think you do.
latinijral
04-13-2005, 04:14 AM
He is coward to do it there.
As far as I can tell, you are the coward here. Stop hiding behind insinuation and innuendo; this is the mark of a true coward. Where are your cojones? The only way you can change my opinion is to stand up and post a complete argument, which means you need to have a conclusion.
As far as I can tell ,here is My conclusion about you :
You are a pseudoskeptic who can not proved me wrong that the coward of Xouper always blame about some forums …………….on other forums, even that he is able to do it there.
You are the same pseudoskeptic who always claim , without any evidence, your insinuations and innuendo about me.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic, writing in this board , that when they make a claim and are asked to support their claim , you will tell that are just opinions and speculations that don’t need evidence.
You are the same pseudoskeptic that I proved you wrong after you asked me you childish repeatedly question. ( page six)
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who easily get piss off when the available evidence is presented.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who are not able to present an evidence to debunk all the available evidence provided by the web , in which are all the basis available to presume are some pro-paedophilia actions mentioned in the link of the OP.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who feel insulted when your sacred cows of skepticism are proved wrong.
I bet you will tell me now , that I am “speculating” about you and that you didn’t ask me a conclusion about you :yawn:
And just to remind you again ..and again…and again…… :yawn::
Page six:
Resume of John Carter’s posts concerning this topic:
“Are you ever going to answer my oft repeated question, latinijral?”
“I have repeatedly asked him to clarify his point”
Resume of Crumb’s support to John Carter’s request:
“I have twice. John Carter has at least three times. Many others have sprinkled the question here and there throughout their responses. “
Since the question was already answered , I will quote it AGAIN, the question and my ANSWER:
Questions made by Crumb (page one)
What point are you trying to make latinijral?
What action do you expect us to take based on this informaion? .
Answer by Latinijral in page two:
I made a WARNING.
It is up to you what you do after that.
You are even free to send your children to them ( if you “think” they will be scientifically educated), if you still think there is not any problem at all.
But you had been warned.
There is an evidence of pro-paedophilia actions listed before your post.
Again , you are free to do whatever you want. .
Crumb’s response to my answer:
Thanks for the 'warning' then, see ya' later. .
----------------------------------
See ya’ John Carter. :wave:
Go and feel supported :bow: ………… by the psudoskeptic coward/liar of Xouper.
Crumb
04-13-2005, 04:30 AM
:cuckoo:
John Carter
04-13-2005, 05:01 AM
He is coward to do it there.
As far as I can tell, you are the coward here. Stop hiding behind insinuation and innuendo; this is the mark of a true coward. Where are your cojones? The only way you can change my opinion is to stand up and post a complete argument, which means you need to have a conclusion.
As far as I can tell ,here is My conclusion about you :
You are a pseudoskeptic who can not proved me wrong that the coward of Xouper always blame about some forums …………….on other forums, even that he is able to do it there.
You are the same pseudoskeptic who always claim , without any evidence, your insinuations and innuendo about me.
I have not presented any insinuations or innuendo. I had the balls to come right out and say that you are a coward. Where are your cojones? As far as I can tell you have none.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic, writing in this board , that when they make a claim and are asked to support their claim , you will tell that are just opinions and speculations that don’t need evidence.
Which claims have I not backed up? Where have you asked me to support any claim?
You are the same pseudoskeptic that I proved you wrong after you asked me you childish repeatedly question. ( page six)
Since you have yet to present an actual conclusion, you have not proven me wrong about anything.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who easily get piss off when the available evidence is presented.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who are not able to present an evidence to debunk all the available evidence provided by the web , in which are all the basis available to presume are some pro-paedophilia actions mentioned in the link of the OP.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who feel insulted when your sacred cows of skepticism are proved wrong.
I bet you will tell me now , that I am “speculating” about you and that you didn’t ask me a conclusion about you :yawn:
I have not yet said much of anything about your evidence. I am not going to critique an incomplete argument, other than to point out that it is incomplete. And therefore worthless. If, on the other hand, you ever get around to presenting a real argument, then I will debate it with you.
And just to remind you again ..and again…and again…… :yawn::
Page six:
Resume of John Carter’s posts concerning this topic:
“Are you ever going to answer my oft repeated question, latinijral?”
“I have repeatedly asked him to clarify his point”
Resume of Crumb’s support to John Carter’s request:
“I have twice. John Carter has at least three times. Many others have sprinkled the question here and there throughout their responses. “
Since the question was already answered , I will quote it AGAIN, the question and my ANSWER:
Questions made by Crumb (page one)
What point are you trying to make latinijral?
What action do you expect us to take based on this informaion? .
Answer by Latinijral in page two:
I made a WARNING.
It is up to you what you do after that.
You are even free to send your children to them ( if you “think” they will be scientifically educated), if you still think there is not any problem at all.
But you had been warned.
There is an evidence of pro-paedophilia actions listed before your post.
Again , you are free to do whatever you want. .
Crumb’s response to my answer:
Thanks for the 'warning' then, see ya' later. .
----------------------------------
See ya’ John Carter. :wave:
Go and feel supported :bow: ………… by the psudoskeptic coward/liar of Xouper.
Once again you dodge the point. This is not the action of a man of courage, and once again you show yourself to be a contemptible coward. Presenting a bunch of accusations, true or otherwise, and then saying that it's "just a warning" is not an argument, nor is it drawing a conclusion. It is the very definition of insinuation. So I ask you again: What is your argument? What is your conclusion? I suspect you will never give a straight forward answer, but I will keep trying until you grow some cojones and present a complete and coherent argument.
rigorist
04-13-2005, 05:20 AM
latinijral is really fucking weird.
That is all.
LiveToRide
04-13-2005, 05:40 AM
latinijral is really fucking weird.
That is all.
I was staying the hell outta this thread, but I gotta go with my fellow newbie here. REALLY fucking weird....
reprise
04-13-2005, 11:54 AM
As liv said at the outset, there's one hell of a long messageboard history involved here and it was only AFTER the claims of Carlos and latin got rejected by the JREF that many years later latin joined the Benneth train.
If you want to know the specifics of the accusations which latin is now making but he didn't even know about himself until quite recently, visit "The Proving". It's a yahoo group. The accusations to which latin is referring involve both paedophilia and murder and a "cover-up" of both on the part of the authorities in various US states.
This all started with the JREF rejecting Carlos' claim for the million dollar challenge. Benneth's accusations of paedophelia, murder, and a cover-up of both by the JREF and various legal authorities have been around for quite a while. The Benneth accusations certainly pre-date any claims by Carlos and/or latin about the "unfairness" of the JREF challenge. Neither Carlos nor latin ever expressed any concerns about Randi's personal moral standards when Carlos was applying for the JREF challenge. Hell, they didn't even mention these accusations - which are fairly well known - at all until a couple of months ago.
Way to gain credibility latin.
Dingfod
04-13-2005, 12:15 PM
Fucktards have no credibility.
John Carter
04-13-2005, 06:11 PM
As liv said at the outset, there's one hell of a long messageboard history involved here and it was only AFTER the claims of Carlos and latin got rejected by the JREF that many years later latin joined the Benneth train.
If you want to know the specifics of the accusations which latin is now making but he didn't even know about himself until quite recently, visit "The Proving". It's a yahoo group. The accusations to which latin is referring involve both paedophilia and murder and a "cover-up" of both on the part of the authorities in various US states.
This all started with the JREF rejecting Carlos' claim for the million dollar challenge. Benneth's accusations of paedophelia, murder, and a cover-up of both by the JREF and various legal authorities have been around for quite a while. The Benneth accusations certainly pre-date any claims by Carlos and/or latin about the "unfairness" of the JREF challenge. Neither Carlos nor latin ever expressed any concerns about Randi's personal moral standards when Carlos was applying for the JREF challenge. Hell, they didn't even mention these accusations - which are fairly well known - at all until a couple of months ago.
Way to gain credibility latin.
Thanks, reprise. At the moment, I am not really interested in the genesis of latinijral's claims. For that matter, I'm not even interested in debating the veracity of these accusations. That may come later, if he ever he draws a specific conclusion. Unitl then, he has only presented half an argument. His continuing insistence that he has presented a complete argument is ridiculous, and shows he is either very stupid or extremely dishonest.
Crumb
04-13-2005, 06:14 PM
he is either very stupid or extremely dishonest.
Probably both.
latinijral
04-14-2005, 04:14 AM
Which claims have I not backed up? .
That I have not cojones
Are you thinking you stole my cojones because you dream with my cojones?
You just cry and cry and cry like a hurt pseudo skeptic because his sacred Skeptics cows had been touched.
I am here in a pro-skeptic forum , full of self confessed skeptics ; making a warning about some other self confessed skeptics , providing all the evidence available at the web that clearly states that is reasonable for some people to think there is a pro-peadophilia connection; forcing all the pseudo skeptics supporters to write about their own contradictions/visits /claims/speculations , proving them wrong ,and with all your pseudo skeptics replies that are only defensive and hostile .
No , I am not doing this warning in a self confessed true believer forum. You need cojones to do it at self confessed sceptics forums.
I am not like the pseudo skeptic Xouper who is coward to tell those things right in the same territory he likes to blame about .
------------------------------------------
Here is your initial childish repeatedly question / already answered before you started to cry…………..again:
-----------------------------------------
Resume of John Carter’s posts concerning this topic:
“Are you ever going to answer my oft repeated question, latinijral?”
“I have repeatedly asked him to clarify his point”
Resume of Crumb’s support to John Carter’s request:
“I have twice. John Carter has at least three times. Many others have sprinkled the question here and there throughout their responses. “
Since the question was already answered , I will quote it AGAIN, the question and my ANSWER:
Questions made by Crumb (page one)
What point are you trying to make latinijral?
What action do you expect us to take based on this informaion? .
Answer by Latinijral in page two:
I made a WARNING.
It is up to you what you do after that.
You are even free to send your children to them ( if you “think” they will be scientifically educated), if you still think there is not any problem at all.
But you had been warned.
There is an evidence of pro-paedophilia actions listed before your post.
Again , you are free to do whatever you want. .
Crumb’s response to my answer:
Thanks for the 'warning' then, see ya' later. .
--------------------------------------
Here is my CONCLUSION about you………….again (since it is your new childish crying request ):
You are a pseudoskeptic who can not proved me wrong that the coward of Xouper always blame about some forums …………….on other forums, even that he is able to do it there.
You are the same pseudoskeptic who always claim , without any evidence, your insinuations and innuendo about me.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic, writing in this board , that when they make a claim and are asked to support their claim , you will tell that are just opinions and speculations that don’t need evidence.
You are the same pseudoskeptic that I proved you wrong after you asked me you childish repeatedly question. ( page six)
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who easily get piss off when the available evidence is presented.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who are not able to present an evidence to debunk all the available evidence provided by the web , in which are all the basis available to presume are some pro-paedophilia actions mentioned in the link of the OP.
You are the same kind of pseudoskeptic who feel insulted when your sacred cows of skepticism are proved wrong.
I bet you will tell me now , that I am “speculating” about you and that you didn’t ask me a conclusion about you :yawn:
Relax…or keep on crying …………. but before you start to cry again , read….. again…… this reply.
----------------------------
P.D.
Excuse me John Carter, :wave:
Pseudo skeptic Warrently is waiting a response……… again :
Wait ! You “never” make claims. Yeah , Yeah……sure……….( add some sarcastic tone) .
Come over to my house and say that, dumbfuck. .
I am in YOUR house . Or you forgot you claimed this ?....... “I live here. You're in MY living room.”
Get a real life …..………..and take a cold shower. Relax. :wave:
Beth is asking me for help.
latinijral
04-14-2005, 04:15 AM
You claimed something without reading the study.Ask LadyShea for help. She wrote some contradictions about it...like you. .
Have you read the damn study? Because I asked you to provide either the study or more of the study for example. I wonder if you are off base, yerself, cowboy. Claiming shit about things you really don't know possitively about. .
My dear lady ,
I am not the one making claims about the study.
I am not the one supporting this “scientific” study :” childhood sexual experiences with adults are not always or even usually harmful.”
I am not the one who claimed this ; “It isn't making an excuse for the offender. It is a matter of how to handle the therapy of the child.”
I am not the one who gave that kind of excuse without reading the “ scientific study”.
You and LadyShea are the ones who did it.
Then….. the burden of proof is on your side.
You are supporting skeptics that according to all the evidence available at the web , people can think they are pro.peadophilia.
Your support is based on what anonimous posters and not authorative persons, who also had not read the study ,tell to you ; and not because you have read the study.
What an ingenious way to support something, while other kind of people who had read the study , like congessmen in USA find it very pro-peadophila. .
I cannot find the study. The authoratative persons you mention really don't seem to be all that authoritative, in my perspective. I ask you again, did you read the entire study? .
Read the above. You are the one who is claiming without reading.
I will help you with the “authorative” link and the quotes LadyShea provided.(page six of this topic)
By LadyShea:” The article was published in the July 1998 edition of the Psychological Bulletin, my mistake, but it was denounced formally by Congress.”
By LadyShea: “The study was denounced by the US Congress because they didn't like the findings.”
Link provided by LadyShea about the study :
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/child_sex_abuse.htm
Quote provided by LadyShea about the study:
“A controversial academic study of pedophilia was roundly condemned yesterday by several congressmen, who chastised the American Psychological Association for publishing its findings.
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay and GOP Reps. Matt Salmon of Arizona, Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania and Dave Weldon of Florida yesterday co-sponsored a resolution calling on President Clinton to join Congress in condemning the report, which suggests that sex between adults and children may not always be harmful.
The Washington Times; 5/13/1999; Duin, Julia”
Go find it and read it.Ask LadyShea about it. Then come back with the evidence that support your previous assumption. .
I have searched, it is not available or searchable online, obviously, unlike the archived posts that I said you were welcome to search for. .
Ask LadyShea for extra help. Read the above, I am helping you with the link ,I am not dodging your request.
Just because you want to defend those skeptics, you just did it without reading. .
I did not defend anyone, nor did I initially post about your WARNING till you implicitly accused me of pedophilia. .
I wish you can provide a sentence about your new claim that I accused you of peadophilia.
But I already know you will tell me that you don’t need to provide the evidence to back up your claims ……right?
Who Is asking you proof of private correspondence?Nahhhhhhh, you are lost....again.
Yes, you asked me for proof of a private correspondance between a family member and myself. .
Prove it. Next time you make a new claim , post the evidence.
I know were you spent your time. .
No, I don't think you do. .
Yes……… I do…….I know you are spending your time now, reading this reply………………..and thinking if you must reply it or not.
You will go to bed thinking on me.
You are feeling defensive and hostile like all pseudo sceptics, but I know you have potential.
I like you.
John Carter
04-14-2005, 04:33 AM
Which claims have I not backed up? .
That I have not cojones
You still have not presented a conclusion. You present nothing but insinuation and innuendo. That shows me a lack of cojones.
As for the rest of your post, I can repeat myself as well:
At the moment, I am not really interested in the genesis of latinijral's claims. For that matter, I'm not even interested in debating the veracity of these accusations. That may come later, if he ever he draws a specific conclusion. Until then, he has only presented half an argument. His continuing insistence that he has presented a complete argument is ridiculous, and shows he is either very stupid or extremely dishonest.
Gurdur
04-14-2005, 04:43 AM
...Are you thinking you stole my cojones because you dream with my cojones?
As a person professionally trained in clinical psychology and associated fields, latinijral, I would simply like to say that, in my professional and considered opinion, you are seriously weird.
xouper
04-14-2005, 04:44 AM
John Carter: ... I can repeat myself as well:
:D
If his past behavior on other forums is any indication, latinijral will tirelessly repeat his crap for another 80 pages.
:yawning:
LiveToRide
04-14-2005, 04:47 AM
Yes……… I do…….I know you are spending your time now, reading this reply………………..and thinking if you must reply it or not.
You will go to bed thinking on me.
You are feeling defensive and hostile like all pseudo sceptics, but I know you have potential.
I like you.
Holy shit...This guy sounds like a fucking stalker.
Has anyone here ever been able to make sense of his ramblings? Because I've just read over a bunch of his stuff, some of it twice, and all I can think is..."What fuckin' planet did he arrive from???"
Latin....EARTH IS FULL.....GO HOME!!!!
xouper
04-14-2005, 04:53 AM
latinijral: ...Are you thinking you stole my cojones because you dream with my cojones?
Gurdur: As a person professionally trained in clinical psychology and associated fields, latinijral, I would simply like to say that, in my professional and considered opinion, you are seriously weird.
In my professional and considered opinion as a software developer, latinijral appears to be a badly implemented ELIZA program.
cite: http://i5.nyu.edu/~mm64/x52.9265/january1966.html
Has anyone here ever been able to make sense of his ramblings?
I can assure you that having read latin's drivel for nearly 3 years, he has never made more sense than he has in this thread. :yawn:
xouper
04-14-2005, 05:57 AM
LiveToRide: Has anyone here ever been able to make sense of his ramblings?
Skeptoid: I can assure you that having read latin's drivel for nearly 3 years, he has never made more sense than he has in this thread. :yawn:That has been my experience as well.
beyelzu
04-14-2005, 06:01 AM
latin, baby,
when are you going to talk to me,
teach me about kiddie porn, my friend, you seem to have much knowledge to share on the subject.
also, could you point out all the pedophiles for me, I know that you have a certain knack for spotting them. You know how it is, it takes a theif and all that.
Gurdur
04-14-2005, 01:17 PM
In my professional and considered opinion as a software developer, latinijral appears to be a badly implemented ELIZA program.
Perhaps a very valid and perceptive diagnosis.
Dingfod
04-14-2005, 01:28 PM
latin, baby,
when are you going to talk to me,I think I scared him off with my last post, it was too confrontational. Notice he didn't address my post at all and went after Beth again instead. latin is a fucking idiotic nitwit, no proof needed other than his own lunatic ravings here.
Gurdur
04-14-2005, 01:47 PM
The best summation and diagnosis so far.
livius drusus
04-14-2005, 02:14 PM
Notice he didn't address my post at all and went after Beth again instead.
Indeed. Sliming women is one of his most common tactics, and he's as proficient at that as he is at endless repetition.
LiveToRide
04-15-2005, 01:30 AM
Indeed. Sliming women is one of his most common tactics, and he's as proficient at that as he is at endless repetition.
Sliming women? I love coming across "people" like that in real life. The heavy soles of my motorcycle boots come in real handy.... :asskick:
latinijral
04-15-2005, 05:30 AM
As a person professionally trained in clinical psychology and associated fields…...
:yup: :bow:
LATINIJRAL’s TRANSLATION at GURDUR’S claim : “As a psedoskeptic person with treatment at mental and psychology Institutions…..”
Tomorrow you will tell us you are Napoleon.
Xouper, John Carter, and Skeptoid will say to you again:
“Yes, I agree with you, I believe what you say ”
You might have what skeptic John Schumaker (Prometheus Books) wrote : “Skeptics can have difficulty adjusting to society and are susceptible to certain mental disorders”.
Look at Warrently, poor jealous baby, he wants my “complete attention” at his “house”.
I am straight and I respect your sexual choice. But…..
I smile to women ……………….. but…………………. I am laughing at you..
: :wave:
.
livius drusus
04-15-2005, 12:31 PM
I've never seen a man have so many periods.
vBulletin® v3.8.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.