Topic: What grinds my gears: Fucking retards who treat this place like some sort of child porn hub
Anonymous A started this topic 9 months (2009-07-03 01:13:?? UTC) ago (#28,781):
… making headlines such as: "Is Vicky alright?"
As if we are supposed to immediately know who the fuck "Vicky" is. Apparently she is some sort of child porn star. So fucking give us the context. Fucking idiots.
Poll: Do only morons donate to charities?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 01:21:?? UTC) ago, 8 minutes later (#172,010):
I hate this too! Thanks for the good rant.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 02:15:?? UTC) ago, 54 minutes later, 1 hour past creation (#172,035):
There's nothing wrong or illegal about discussing pedophilia, and most of the pictures I've seen linked to here are of clothed girls.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 02:16:?? UTC) ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour past creation (#172,037):
(Citing a non-existent or external reply.)
Although there are quite a lot of these topics there are also many other topics. And anti-pedophile replies are not deleted if they follow the rules.
To filter these topics from the list you can use ostrich mode which can be found on the dashboard page in the stuff section.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 02:31:?? UTC) ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour past creation (#172,048):
Yeah. So this is my first time coming to this site, and the amount of shit that gets posted here is disgusting. I've never raged so hard at pedos in my life. The sad thing is that I know I can beat the shit out of all you pedos, but I'll never see you in my life. You all sit there behind your computers knowing you're safe. From me at least.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 02:45:?? UTC) ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours past creation (#172,059):
@previousInternet tough-guy, huh? Why do you rage so hard over who someone is attracted to?
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 02:52:?? UTC) ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours past creation (#172,073):
@172,048I'm shaking in my boots!
Even if you did beat a pedophile up, they're much smarter than you (some of them at least) and would have your ass sued and arrested.
So go for it! Ruin your own life!
…Anyway, back on topic. It takes like 5 minutes of searching to find out what/who Vicky is, and what the videos are about.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 02:58:?? UTC) ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours past creation (#172,083):
@172,035The OP said nothing related to what you are talking about in your post. It should be noted as irrelevant. He or she simply stated that topics should be specific, they should have intent. They should not assume that we are all pedophiles so we should know what the fuck you are talking about. While pedophiles are free to discuss their matters they should also follow the fucking rules. Topics should clearly define what a discussion is about.
He is clearly referencing this topic: Are "Vicky" and "Jenny" the same person?
We are given no hint or clue as to what the hell is going to be within this discussion. How are we supposed to know who Vicky or Jenny is?
The OP's point: remember that this isn't just some pedophile clubhouse.
End of rant.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 05:20:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours past creation (#172,135):
@previousYou are so blinded by your hatred of pedophiles and bent on your anti-pedophile agenda that you don't care if you spew pure nonsense as long as you feel that you accomplished something towards your evil goals.
Any well-defined topic is allowed by the rules, and "are Jenny and Vicky the same girl?" is a well-defined topic, because it can be answered yes or no by those who know the answer. If you don't know who they are you know that the question is not for you, so you should realize that you may be exposing yourself to something that you may get all tied up in knots about.
I bet if I posted "What kind of curve is 9x^2 + 25y^2 = 225?" you would not enter that topic unless you knew the answer or really loved math. You also would not be bitching about this topic being outside your interests, or calling AT a "math club", because
no one is forcing you to participate in it, and you can find/post topics that suit you. Yes, this math topic
is exclusive. Topics
are, by nature exclusive—they have intended audiences—however, this doesn't make AT exclusive since
anyone can post/read/reply any topic they want.
Fucking idiot Anonymous G replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 05:45:?? UTC) ago, 25 minutes later, 5 hours past creation (#172,141):
@previousBefore you assume I belong to any particular "anti-" or "pro-" agenda you should understand that I was specifically referencing an unwritten, written rule. It is exactly quoted as such:
> A topic should always make sense stand-alone with no background information or context.Regardless of whether one is "pro-" or "anti-," I think people should follow the fucking rules.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 06:22:?? UTC) ago, 37 minutes later, 5 hours past creation (#172,151):
@172,135You really need a hug. Calm the fuck down buddy, it's the Internet, remember? No one gives a fuck what you say here.
Anonymous H replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 08:45:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours past creation (#172,257):
@172,141> I think people should follow the fucking rules.And that's what I just got done explaining to you, that the Jenny-and-Vicky post that you whined about meets those rules, but obviously it didn't get through your meter-thick skull.
@the other imbecile
The Internet is
serious business.
Anonymous H double-posted this 9 months (2009-07-03 08:54:?? UTC) ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours past creation (#172,261):
(Citing a non-existent or external reply.)
More imbeciles join the fray.
I'm telling you, don't go around real life spewing your shit—you never know who you may be talking to…
Anonymous H triple-posted this 9 months (2009-07-03 09:15:?? UTC) ago, 21 minutes later, 8 hours past creation (#172,269):
(Citing a non-existent or external reply.)
You admit that you knew what you were getting into when you came here, plus look at the particular topic you picked, so it is too late for you to play "victim".
But don't worry, your personality sucks. No pedo will go for you, I guarantee you that.
Oh, one more thing: get the fuck out of AT.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 09:27:?? UTC) ago, 12 minutes later, 8 hours past creation (#172,275):
@172,059As its kinda pathetic you go for the kids as you can't get a real woman due to your tiny penis and/or shit personality.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 12:19:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours past creation (#172,315):
Yeah.
I think that this site is rather unique as it allows for the discussion of pedophilia where you will get more open mined responses from people. This is good, abusing it to distribute pictures is not
I even hate the postings where people try to disguise their more questionable pictures of children on this site with. I will show a few examples of what I
mean
(Citing a non-existent or external reply.)
says something about 'This is how I want my future boyfriend to look when he starts smoking'. There is one link to one picture of a young boy around 12-years old in his underwear.
(Citing a non-existent or external reply.)
This thread contains a request by the OP for sex advice, he says he is having sex with the girl in a linked picture. The girl doesn't seem to be underage, but it seems that its possible. My point is that this is a picture of a girl that is not displayed inappropriately. If the young buy from my other example was pictured like this, there would be no problem with it, but I think the last example was just an excuse to post that picture. The law against child pornography pictures allow displaying underage children with clothes on, but it becomes quickly obvious when the pictures are abusing the child (either in the photo or by distributing it). A picture of 'Us at the beach' with a young girl in bikini's is normal when it is among a larger collection of other family photo's; but not when it is accompanied by photo's of other unrelated minors in a lack of clothing. You forget, the child pornography laws serve to protect children and are made by those who care for those they care about, these people don't expect it is all they must do, and don't expect standing behind these laws saying 'but this isn't technically illegal' means that people can't say your wrong.
Anonymous G replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 14:48:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours past creation (#172,346):
I couldn't help but notice the topic I was actually referencing disappeared… how and why did that happen?
@172,257I was not attacking you or your ideas or your sexual orientation. I was simply stating my own interpretation of what I thought the OP meant by his or her post:
> … making headlines such as: "Is Vicky alright?"Without context, an AT goer can't possibly know what the topic is about. There are countless topics deleted everyday and several that should be deleted solely because they assume every AT member knows what they are talking about. With such a vague headline as "Is Vicky alright?," We are lead to ask several questions; who is Vicky? What do we mean is she alright? Did she get hurt? One could say the same thing about the topic that I referenced and also mysteriously disappeared.
I personally don't mind if pedophiles use this board as discussion forum as this is a free, unrestricted environment and it is fallacious for you to assume I do.
I'm assuming you'll probably apologize after reading this, realizing that I meant no offense against your pedophile ways. I accept your apology. Thank you for being so enlightening for me and such a well-spoken individual.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 14:51:?? UTC) ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours past creation (#172,347):
@previous> I couldn't help but notice the topic I was actually referencing disappeared… how and why did that happen?Worthless headline, obviously.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 15:58:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours past creation (#172,370):
I agree with the OP. The discussion of paedophilia is fine, but posting links to child porn shouldn't happen. That's not free speech, it's promoting illegal activities.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 16:11:?? UTC) ago, 13 minutes later, 15 hours past creation (#172,377):
@172,073> Even if you did beat a pedophile up, they're much smarter than you Actually most Pedophiles tend to be in the lower IQ ranges.
Anonymous L replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 16:13:?? UTC) ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours past creation (#172,378):
@previousAgreed. It's people with psychotic tendencies that have a higher average IQ.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 17:17:?? UTC) ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours past creation (#172,400):
@172,073Laughing my fucking ass off.
That, is one of the most bullshit-filled paragraphs ever to have been written.
Anonymous H replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 19:48:?? UTC) ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours past creation (#172,475):
@172,346> There are countless topics deleted everyday and several that should be deleted solely because they assume every AT member knows what they are talking about.No, sir.
No topic needs to be understood by "
every AT member". It suffices that it can be understood by
at least another person aside from the OP for its headline to meet the rules.
Suppose I were to write "Was Franco's policy of neutrality traitorous?" chances are you wouldn't know shit about my topic, yet to those who can answer the question or at least make a meaningful comment it would be plain that the topic was about the fascist dictator of Spain that used to be allied with Hitler and Mussolini. Did I "assume that every AT member knows what I'm talking about?" No! but I didn't need to, yet the headline is meaningful to anyone who can contribute useful responses to it. What makes a headline worthless is that
no one knows what it is about.
Something tells me that if you had clicked on that topic out of curiosity you would have either quit when you realized it was over your head or asked who Franco was, but you wouldn't be all flustered
demanding that I must explain his topic so that "every member of AT knows."
Now suppose that I instead wrote "Was Kilye a traitor?" you probably would know shit about this as well. Again, however, to those able to answer it would be plain that I was talking about the child-porn "star" also known as "Vicky". Thus, again, this headline is not worthless.
However, if you had clicked on this topic out of curiosity, you would be up in arms all flustered and discombobulated—just as you are now—
even though the headline is just as wortwhile and valid according to the rules as in the "Franco" topic.
See? the difference is not whether the headline is worthless, or that you are unfamiliar with the topic, but
the topic itself. You are trying to pretend that you have a problem with the headline when in reality your problem is that you find the topic offensive and are trying to abuse and misuse the rules to get rid off it.
Too bad for you that will never happen.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 9 months (2009-07-03 22:00:?? UTC) ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours past creation (#172,524):
I don't care what topics get posted but I do care about AT. The ongoing swathes of paedophilia related topics will just lead to the board being shut down by the moral majority and we will all have lost something valuable, as well as the net becoming a little less free.
So please my child loving friends, if you must exchange sensitive information set up a newsgroup and do it P2P.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 8 months (2009-07-08 03:17:?? UTC) ago, 4 days later, 5 days past creation (#175,454):
Actually, open and honest Vicky and Jenny discussion threads are the only reason I come to AT.
If you don't like it, there are tons of other internet forums out there for your interests. AT happens to be one that entertains my pedo interests (and doesn't judge or ban posters for bringing up these topics) and the only place I've found so far that discusses things like "The Tara Series" in an open forum with other like-minded people.
© AnonTalk.com 2008–2010