Hi Pig!

[eris]

well it goes in different degrees. yeah pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent and then hebephilia is like during puberty like 11 - 15 and then ephebophilia is older adolescence.

I would not be interested in a 15 or 16 year old either. Way too young. But I also dont go around carding people to see how old they are before i decide if they are attractive or not. I prefer boys from like 18  - 23

If you like 18 year olds, you might need to card them at some point before you have sex just to be safe.  I think there could be some 16 or 17 year olds who look 18 or even older.  I think that the child who Mary Kay Letourneau was having sex with (and later married) was 12 or 13 but he looked 18 to me in the pictures that I saw.  Of course that's an extreme example and she was his sixth grade teacher so she knew perfectly well how old he was.

if i were to fool around with or go out with someone i would make sure they were at least 18. I have asked boys to prove to me how old they are before. I know my current boyfriend is 18 because he would not have been in the adult shelter if he was still a minor.

[Pyraxis]

I care less about BC's personal growth and care more about preserving the site for the rest of us.  His hobby here seems to be trolling and violating the host's liberal (IMO, compared to other hosts) TOS and he declares he feels censored when he's not allowed to do this.

I think he will be happier growing somewhere else.

Have fun with that then. I care about people even when they violate the rules.

[TA]

Folks, this is (was) BC in yet another incarnation. He is not welcome here and will be banned every time we get positive confirmation, regardless of the role he happens to be playing.

If you endanger the site, you will be banned and you will not be allowed back using a sockpuppet account. I would have thought the concept to be easy to grasp.

Ah, so it was BC Impersonating Pig. Makes sense.

[Calavera]

I care less about BC's personal growth and care more about preserving the site for the rest of us.  His hobby here seems to be trolling and violating the host's liberal (IMO, compared to other hosts) TOS and he declares he feels censored when he's not allowed to do this.

I think he will be happier growing somewhere else.

Have fun with that then. I care about people even when they violate the rules.

[Squidusa]

I don't know BC very well but I can't help but feel there has been a mix up like with Matthe.

[odeon]

Keep on doing that and I will make your stay here miserable.

You'd make a scary-ass cellmate in prison.

I probably would.

[odeon]

When BC was banned the first time, Parts tried talking to him first.  BC said that he would stop, but he just waited for Parts to log off and then he started another CP thread like the one Parts had just discussed with him.  Whatever he says now, how could he be trusted to keep his word when he has already demonstrated that he has no honor?

Because how can a person ever grow if you don't leave them a way out? If you expect them to be impossible, they will fulfil your expectations to the letter, so that treatment should be reserved for the rare people who are truly unredeemable.

It has to be handled delicately but it is possible to establish trust even with chronically unpredictable people. Often unreliability just means there are patterns under the surface that aren't yet understood.

He'll have to find a way elsewhere.

[odeon]

I don't know BC very well but I can't help but feel there has been a mix up like with Matthe.

I very much doubt it.

[Pyraxis]

He'll have to find a way elsewhere.

I was actually thinking more about future cases. The subtext was directed at Callaway specifically and is not meant to question your judgment.

[odeon]

He'll have to find a way elsewhere.

I was actually thinking more about future cases. The subtext was directed at Callaway specifically and is not meant to question your judgment.

Ah, OK.

But to make it clear anyway, I think that when in doubt we usually let them register. We've all been known to be wrong. Me, I've been spectacularly wrong.

[Calavera]

If Pig is truly BC, then DetestableInsect on WP must be BC's true self. He looks so real there.

[ProfessorFarnsworth]

I don't think it was BC. That or he planned the whole thing on WP and hoped someone would suggest I2 as an alternative to WP... Nah

Mind you, Shleed remarked on S2 that they both had similar IP addresses, so eh.

[Parts]

I don't think it was BC. That or he planned the whole thing on WP and hoped someone would suggest I2 as an alternative to WP... Nah

Mind you, Shleed remarked on S2 that they both had similar IP addresses, so eh.

Well lets look at this both had the same ISP and had IPs to towns less than ten miles from each other.  Both talked about the same things and used similar language patterns with words like "sheesh".  BC was known to troll WP with different sockpuppets

[odeon]

And quite frankly I don't trust Shleed.

[Frolic_Fun]

I'm not really sure it was BC, to be honest. The IP addresses are similar in the sense that they're in Washington DC and that both are Verzion, but both are completely distinct and *were* on at the same time. On top of that, my logs showed that the IP addresses never changed. No sign of proxy since both were clearly on the same ISP and location.

BC's IP range: 96.231.xx.xxx
Pig's IP range: 71.246.xx.xxx

That said, if BC used either here then it would be a different story, although to be frank I don't really care if pig was BC or not.