To All The Lurkers....

dmezynski · Post by **dmezynski** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:12 pm

stumpy wrote:No longer lurking!

and bringing the thread back on track

Rufusharley · Post by **Rufusharley** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:29 pm

dmezynski wrote:
stumpy wrote:No longer lurking!
and bringing the thread back on track

Oh no you don't...

myron · Post by **myron** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:43 pm

Rufusharley wrote:
dmezynski wrote:
stumpy wrote:No longer lurking!
and bringing the thread back on track
Oh no you don't...

DOH!

Thread went Dumbledore on us...

stumpy · Post by **stumpy** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:00 pm

ANOTHER thread gone gay!

Back to lurking...

X-O HoboJoe · Post by **X-O HoboJoe** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:47 pm

Rufusharley wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:You wanna impress me? Take the thread fecal!
It did:

caxiotis wrote:
Phantom wrote:depluto
That made me laugh out a load ~ is too
I thought I would fix your post

I stand erected.

siren3-4 · Post by **siren3-4** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:50 pm

X-O HoboJoe wrote:
Rufusharley wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:You wanna impress me? Take the thread fecal!
It did:

caxiotis wrote:
Phantom wrote:depluto
That made me laugh out a load ~ is too
I thought I would fix your post

I stand erected.

If you are like that for more than 4 hours . . . call a doctor . . .

X-O HoboJoe · Post by **X-O HoboJoe** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:55 pm

siren3-4 wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:
Rufusharley wrote:
X-O HoboJoe wrote:You wanna impress me? Take the thread fecal!
It did:

caxiotis wrote:
Phantom wrote:depluto
That made me laugh out a load ~ is too
I thought I would fix your post

I stand erected.
If you are like that for more than 4 hours . . . call a doctor . . .

I think I'd brag about it in "Everything Else" first.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:16 pm

BOOGERS!!!

slym2none · Post by **slym2none** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 12:41 am

ZephyrWasHOT!! wrote:
dmezynski wrote:
Elveen wrote:
dmezynski wrote:Still lurking....

But I visit several times a week

Come on.... add to the madness.

“In that direction,” Greg said, waving his right hand round, “lives a MOTA: and in that direction,” waving the other hand, “lives an Elveen. Visit either you like: they’re both mad.”

“But I don’t want to go among mad people.” dmezynski remarked.

“Oh, you can’t help that,” said Greg: “we’re all mad here.”

With apologies to Lewis Carroll : )
Au contraire...Lewis Carroll would delight in our particular brand of madness..........

Er... wasn't L.C. also known for *ahem* "de-flowering" very, very young girls in his time???

-slym

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:32 pm

It is possible, highly likely, that he had some interest at the very least, in young girls. There is no solid evidence, everything being as it is, cirumstanial. There are varrying theories on what he was. It is next to impossible that whatever the deal with him was, that it involved boys. No, his prediliction was certainly for girls, but contact is unkown.

Consider the mores of the time and how certain types of relationship between genders and class could be construed one way, especially if there was something seen as "innappropriate" for whatever reason. I think he absolutely had affections for young girls, but in my opinion, there is not enough hard evidence to convict him one way or the other. If he did indeed have "relations" with young girls...well...yeah. But, consider also that what we consider young and what they considered young were different things. Of course, he did have a LOT of pictures of "YOUNG" girls and so, it is my personal belief that he probably did though if forced to go on the record I could not say in an academic and scientifically provable sense that yes, he did or was. Sorry if I went in circle.

I am not in any way defending someone who would do such a thing. If he did it, it's outrageous. If the girls in question were 15, that would be one thing as women got married young back then regularly but these were KIDS and that, in any period, is to me, not right. There have to be lines which cannot be crossed. Just my two cents. By the way, check out "The Carrol Myth" which suggest that he was not and that thoughts that he was stem from a misunderstanding of Victorian society. I think it's as likely as the next. I don't want to disparage an innocent man but, if guilty, then he can go to the hot place.

Rubiks-Q-Bert · Post by **Rubiks-Q-Bert** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:40 pm

xodacia81 wrote:It is possible, highly likely, that he had some interest at the very least, in young girls. There is no solid evidence, everything being as it is, cirumstanial. There are varrying theories on what he was. It is next to impossible that whatever the deal with him was, that it involved boys. No, his prediliction was certainly for girls, but contact is unkown. Consider the mores of the time and how certain types of relationship between genders and class could be construed one way, especially if there was something seen as "innappropriate" for whatever reason. I think he absolutely had affections for young girls, but in my opinion, there is not enough hard evidence to convict him one way or the other. If he did indeed have "relations" with young girls...well...yeah. But, consider also that what we consider young and what they considered young were different things. Of course, he did have a LOT of pictures of "YOUNG" girls and so, it is my personal belief that he probably did though if forced to go on the record I could not say in an academic and scientifically provable sense that yes, he did or was. Sorry if I went in circle. I am not in any way defending someone who would do such a thing. If he did it, it's outrageous. If the girls in question were 15, that would be one thing as women got married young back then regularly but these were KIDS and that, in any period, is to me, not right. There have to be lines which cannot be crossed. Just my two cents. By the way, check out "The Carrol Myth" which suggest that he was not and that thoughts that he was stem from a misunderstanding of Victorian society. I think it's as likely as the next. I don't want to disparage an innocent man but, if guilty, then he can go to the hot place.

Paragraphs. Learn, use, love.

xodacia81 · Post by **xodacia81** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:46 pm

Rubiks-Q-Bert wrote:
xodacia81 wrote:It is possible, highly likely, that he had some interest at the very least, in young girls. There is no solid evidence, everything being as it is, cirumstanial. There are varrying theories on what he was. It is next to impossible that whatever the deal with him was, that it involved boys. No, his prediliction was certainly for girls, but contact is unkown. Consider the mores of the time and how certain types of relationship between genders and class could be construed one way, especially if there was something seen as "innappropriate" for whatever reason. I think he absolutely had affections for young girls, but in my opinion, there is not enough hard evidence to convict him one way or the other. If he did indeed have "relations" with young girls...well...yeah. But, consider also that what we consider young and what they considered young were different things. Of course, he did have a LOT of pictures of "YOUNG" girls and so, it is my personal belief that he probably did though if forced to go on the record I could not say in an academic and scientifically provable sense that yes, he did or was. Sorry if I went in circle. I am not in any way defending someone who would do such a thing. If he did it, it's outrageous. If the girls in question were 15, that would be one thing as women got married young back then regularly but these were KIDS and that, in any period, is to me, not right. There have to be lines which cannot be crossed. Just my two cents. By the way, check out "The Carrol Myth" which suggest that he was not and that thoughts that he was stem from a misunderstanding of Victorian society. I think it's as likely as the next. I don't want to disparage an innocent man but, if guilty, then he can go to the hot place.
Paragraphs. Learn, use, love.

Done. As a writer, I should not allow myself such laziness, even on MB's.

superman-prime · Post by **superman-prime** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:02 pm

Paragraphs, what are those???

Elveen · Post by **Elveen** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:30 pm

superman-prime wrote:Paragraphs, what are those???

That's funny Supes.

Daniel Jackson · Post by **Daniel Jackson** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:44 pm

Elveen wrote:
superman-prime wrote:Paragraphs, what are those???
That's funny Supes.

I don't think he's kidding.....

BettyBoop2 · Post by **BettyBoop2** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:54 am

leonmallett · Post by **leonmallett** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:34 pm

Daniel Jackson wrote:
Elveen wrote:
superman-prime wrote:Paragraphs, what are those???
That's funny Supes.
I don't think he's kidding.....

Hey, we've had the punctuation breakthrough, haven't we...?

Just kidding, superman-prime.

BettyBoop2 · Post by **BettyBoop2** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:45 pm

TKWill · Post by **TKWill** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:26 pm

leonmallett wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:
Elveen wrote:
superman-prime wrote:Paragraphs, what are those???
That's funny Supes.
I don't think he's kidding.....
Hey, we've had the punctuation breakthrough, haven't we...?

Just kidding, superman-prime.

What the Hell?!?!?! Did someone edit Supes post? I didn't have to reread it.

TKW - (Three emotes in honor of Slym's return.)

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:54 pm

leonmallett wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:
Elveen wrote:
superman-prime wrote:Paragraphs, what are those???
That's funny Supes.
I don't think he's kidding.....
Hey, we've had the punctuation breakthrough, haven't we...?

Just kidding, superman-prime.

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:56 pm

ThrillKillWill wrote:
leonmallett wrote:
Daniel Jackson wrote:
Elveen wrote:
superman-prime wrote:Paragraphs, what are those???
That's funny Supes.
I don't think he's kidding.....
Hey, we've had the punctuation breakthrough, haven't we...?

Just kidding, superman-prime.
What the Hell?!?!?! Did someone edit Supes post? I didn't have to reread it.

TKW - (Three emotes in honor of Slym's return.)

SNAP!

Poor Supes.

He is, by far, one of my favorites posters. I'd never correct anything he wrote, just keep reading it until I figure out what he's saying.

The correction thing....that's only to *SQUEE* people off...

ZephyrWasHOT!! · Post by **ZephyrWasHOT!!** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:06 pm

xodacia81 wrote:It is possible, highly likely, that he had some interest at the very least, in young girls. There is no solid evidence, everything being as it is, cirumstanial. There are varrying theories on what he was. It is next to impossible that whatever the deal with him was, that it involved boys. No, his prediliction was certainly for girls, but contact is unkown.

Consider the mores of the time and how certain types of relationship between genders and class could be construed one way, especially if there was something seen as "innappropriate" for whatever reason. I think he absolutely had affections for young girls, but in my opinion, there is not enough hard evidence to convict him one way or the other. If he did indeed have "relations" with young girls...well...yeah. But, consider also that what we consider young and what they considered young were different things. Of course, he did have a LOT of pictures of "YOUNG" girls and so, it is my personal belief that he probably did though if forced to go on the record I could not say in an academic and scientifically provable sense that yes, he did or was. Sorry if I went in circle.

I am not in any way defending someone who would do such a thing. If he did it, it's outrageous. If the girls in question were 15, that would be one thing as women got married young back then regularly but these were KIDS and that, in any period, is to me, not right. There have to be lines which cannot be crossed. Just my two cents. By the way, check out "The Carrol Myth" which suggest that he was not and that thoughts that he was stem from a misunderstanding of Victorian society. I think it's as likely as the next. I don't want to disparage an innocent man but, if guilty, then he can go to the hot place.

Most of the queens of England, France, et al were married by the age of 12 or 13 up until the 18th century.

When the average life span is THIRTY, that's just what you do.

Their kings were usually 15-20, but sometimes as old as 30 (but not often, obviously.)

We would consider that immoral today, but why?

Only because of our societal attitudes. We raise children to BE children until well into physical adulthood, so it's no surprise that we think having sexual relations with 15 year olds is "taboo."

Personally....by the time I was 13, I knew exactly what I wanted, did everything I could to get it, and was rarin' to go.

So, I have a realllllll hard time with these 16 year old guys being "coerced" into having sex with their superhot 23 year old teachers.

The TEACHER part is definitely inappropriate, and should be illegal, but the 23 and 16 year old? Please. Get real.

99.999995% of all 16 year old males (and, I would imagine, a good majority of females) would willingly and joyfully have sex with anyone they considered attractive, be they also 16, 20, 30, or 60.

*I* wasn't coerced into having sex before I was 18. I knew EXACTLY what I wanted. No one "seduced" me into ANYTHING, and no one did ANYTHING to me that I wasn't ITCHIN' to do myself.

So why would it be different for others?

The people usually with this outrage are generally middle aged women. Go figure.

As I just stated, though, since we as a society raise our children to be CHILDREN long past the age of physical maturity, with the consequence being that they don't think responsibly about sex, don't get married, and quite often have to deal with things like unplanned pregnancy, then yes, it's a very good idea that we teach self control and abstinence.

But on a purely physical level, if anyone thinks a 14 year old, or 15 year old, or 16 year old male is coerced....in ANY WAY....to have sex...

You're off your rocker.