Is SciForums a 'front' for paedophiles?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by zenbabelfish, Feb 8, 2007.

  1. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    heeeel slim.
    zoals urbanus.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    you are such a spuriousmonkey.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    mischien....

    meer een kinderriemer, als je zenbabelfish luisteren.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    Which mod?

    The mans hand on the childs thigh in the context of the thread obviously makes this paedophile content which is illegal.
     
  8. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    actually, the photo was selected for the ugly middle aged man...in contrast to the subject of the thread. it was a joke, aimed toward genji.

    interestingly, most people that see things like this in innocuous situations are more likely to commit the atrocities you are accusing us of.

    go away, troll. we have enough of your kind around here.

    shoo!
     
  9. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    It had always been my greatest wish to Destroy, Erase, Improve the devil inside because he insulted my mother.
     
  10. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    bring it, sucka.
    she didnt insult me, thats for sure.
    maybe if she were a bit more lively in the sack, i wouldnt have insulted her.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Well, she is not that young anymore!
     
  12. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    yeah, maybe if she werent 100 years old, i would have enjoyed it more.
    still...she can shake her thaaaang!!
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    someone make a nice thread. I'm bored.
     
  14. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    im making dinner soon..so i wont be around till tomorrow.
     
  15. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,024
    Yes, it must be a front. A single vaguely suggestive image, which might be the kid and his father or grandfather for all you know, makes it a front for paedophilia. Shut down sciforums immediately.
     
  16. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I'm going home. Been cutting sections all day and they were mostly shit.
     
  17. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    The image is bad enough on its own - the fact that it is still online is testament to the attitudes of the mods in question.

    Do you think I was wrong in making it publically known that there a paedophile images being posted?

    Do you think it is right that the mods have not removed the image and the poster is still free to post?

    If your answer is Yes to the first and no to the second I suggest you go and discuss this with a professional.
     
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    did you report the post with the report button?
     
  19. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    a man touching a child's leg in an obviously open, genial environment is not pedophilia.

    what the fuck is wrong with you? did you not get enough hugs as a kid, or what? jesus christ.
     
  20. zenbabelfish autonomous hyperreal sophist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    961
    As a previous 'reports' of sexually-offensive comments directed to a poster in the same thread weren't acted on - I lacked any faith in the forum mods integrity and reported directly to the forum administrator.

    Do you approve of these images?
     
  21. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    i approve of them. they are innocent pictures, not portraying anything remotely pornographic.

    if you dont like the forum, leave.
    im sure we will all miss you.
     
  22. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Wow. That picture wasn't the least bit sexual. It looked like that kid was the guy's son.
     
  23. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Give me a freaking break. Context and insinuation doesn't make child porn. It's when children are portrayed in a sexual act.
     

Share This Page