tee hee

[P7PSP]

And then approach a wild bunny and pet it.

[odeon]

It's not against the law to joke about paedophilia on the internet.

Depending on the contents, it can be against our TOS and it is certainly enough to warrant an investigation by our host. We didn't want that kind of attention then and we don't want it now.

BC knew what he was doing when posting about paedophilia here. Defend him all you want but he is not welcome here. He won't ever be.

[badcucumber]

It's not against the law to joke about paedophilia on the internet.

Depending on the contents, it can be against our TOS and it is certainly enough to warrant an investigation by our host. We didn't want that kind of attention then and we don't want it now.

BC knew what he was doing when posting about paedophilia here. Defend him all you want but he is not welcome here. He won't ever be.

I was referring to when bodie CALLED THE POLICE on him. It may be against a TOS and if he is banned, then so be it. I am not defending him, I am only saying it is no reason to call the police and I did not have anything to do with it nor did he use my computer.

[Al Swearegen]

It's not against the law to joke about paedophilia on the internet.

Depending on the contents, it can be against our TOS and it is certainly enough to warrant an investigation by our host. We didn't want that kind of attention then and we don't want it now.

BC knew what he was doing when posting about paedophilia here. Defend him all you want but he is not welcome here. He won't ever be.

I was referring to when bodie CALLED THE POLICE on him. It may be against a TOS and if he is banned, then so be it. I am not defending him, I am only saying it is no reason to call the police and I did not have anything to do with it nor did he use my computer.

I have not been looking at the thread, it seems to put on a few pages since I last posted on it. I don't know the background to the Bodie and Buttcoffee pedophilia thing. I can tell you that lately I have disagreed with some stuff Bodie has said. I do not feel compelled to defend her blindly.
That said, if Buttcoffee or anyone else has said anything about Bodie's young child that even is suggestive of pedophilia then they need the cops called on them. If he was using your username and/or IP then you need that attention too....unless he hacked into your account, you need to be accountable

Not that i know the score but I am guessing it goes something like this; "He is a sweetie, really. I don't control what he does. It was just one occasion. This was complete over-reaction. It was all a joke/misunderstanding/harmless passing comment. Bodie is the baddie in this a situation. She is a real bitch. How dare she not be sport for pedophilia comments about her son!"

Something like that? I will not back Bodie blindly, but I will back her to the hilt over this, and give her written statements of support if need be. 

[Charlotte Quin]

If I were Bodie I would have called the police too.

Jokes about pedophilia; questionable.
Jokes about pedophilia concerning another's school aged children; definitely over the line

[Jack]

I am only saying it is no reason to call the police

Yes, that type of thing is best approached with vigilante violence. No reason to call the police.

[P7PSP]

I am only saying it is no reason to call the police

Yes, that type of thing is best approached with vigilante violence. No reason to call the police.

[Jack]

[odeon]

It's not against the law to joke about paedophilia on the internet.

Depending on the contents, it can be against our TOS and it is certainly enough to warrant an investigation by our host. We didn't want that kind of attention then and we don't want it now.

BC knew what he was doing when posting about paedophilia here. Defend him all you want but he is not welcome here. He won't ever be.

I was referring to when bodie CALLED THE POLICE on him. It may be against a TOS and if he is banned, then so be it. I am not defending him, I am only saying it is no reason to call the police and I did not have anything to do with it nor did he use my computer.

She had every reason. I would have done the same if it had been my kid.

[lutra]

Hey hey Eris.. welcome back. Ça va bien?


(albeit stuff.. say hi to Buttceebaby from me, will ya)

Have you been fishing with him, I'm wondering now. You don't really strike me as the type of person (to go fishing) but.. hey.. who knows.

[Al Swearegen]

So there you have it Eris. We* are not enamoured of Buttcoffee. Don't give a shit if you are or are not. We* will not accept justifications or minimisation as to the severity of his actions., and are not likely to change our* minds.
This is not borne of a want to chat about Buttcoffee (he is not worth gossiping about) but rather clarifying rather strange inferences you seem to be making. You can naturally make more strange inferences and this no doubt will extend the thread but it is artificially inflating the thread's length and no real indicator of a want to fixate on Buttcoffee, You, Bodie or her Urchin......just so it is all clear





* We/Our used in this way is to be used to imply a group of unnamed and unquantified group of people on this forum who are not in favour of anyone making pedophile comments about members children and who also think contacting the police is reasonable in such circumstances. Not saying any one person in particular, nor am I discounting any people to whom have no yet expressed dislike for such conduct. The group may or may not consist solely of the people expressing their disdain here or greater numbers of members on this forum. I have not factored Jack personally in this group. Nor have i sought to seek permission to speak on behalf of such people. This does not mean that I am using a royal we but rather making a reasonable association to a mindset I am reasonably certain exists on this forum over a certain matter.  It may still be that i am mistaken but again I rather doubt it.

A disclaimer like this for using the term "we" seems rather pointless doesn't it Jack? Perhaps rather more reasonable to simply take the position that if a person is using we, it would generally mean they are talking about a group NOT themselves. Perhaps even further to this, pressing the point, once informed they are not using a royal we, is redundant.....yes?

[Queen Victoria]

Eris is back and I am happy for it. 

For me, she is one of the fascinating people on here.  I have been scandalized about some of her behaviours, and that is part of my interest in her.  I also feel a sense of mothering for her because of her diabetes.  Yes, I know you're a big girl, but I CAN worry if I want to, just not lecture you about it.

The jury is out on Buttcoffee for me.  His behaviour here is disreputable and not my cup of tea.  Whether he is a good thing for Eris IRL, that's for her to decide.  I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on whether he'll have influence over her her.  Probably not.

badcucumber is an awful name.  Maybe you could change it to something more elegant like, Queen of the North or Titwillow?

[McGiver]

So there you have it Eris. We* are not enamoured of Buttcoffee. Don't give a shit if you are or are not. We* will not accept justifications or minimisation as to the severity of his actions., and are not likely to change our* minds.
This is not borne of a want to chat about Buttcoffee (he is not worth gossiping about) but rather clarifying rather strange inferences you seem to be making. You can naturally make more strange inferences and this no doubt will extend the thread but it is artificially inflating the thread's length and no real indicator of a want to fixate on Buttcoffee, You, Bodie or her Urchin......just so it is all clear





* We/Our used in this way is to be used to imply a group of unnamed and unquantified group of people on this forum who are not in favour of anyone making pedophile comments about members children and who also think contacting the police is reasonable in such circumstances. Not saying any one person in particular, nor am I discounting any people to whom have no yet expressed dislike for such conduct. The group may or may not consist solely of the people expressing their disdain here or greater numbers of members on this forum. I have not factored Jack personally in this group. Nor have i sought to seek permission to speak on behalf of such people. This does not mean that I am using a royal we but rather making a reasonable association to a mindset I am reasonably certain exists on this forum over a certain matter.  It may still be that i am mistaken but again I rather doubt it.

A disclaimer like this for using the term "we" seems rather pointless doesn't it Jack? Perhaps rather more reasonable to simply take the position that if a person is using we, it would generally mean they are talking about a group NOT themselves. Perhaps even further to this, pressing the point, once informed they are not using a royal we, is redundant.....yes?

killing two birds with one stone.

[odeon]

It's sort of amusing that they both seem to think they are the talk of the board.

[McGiver]

It's sort of amusing that they both seem to think they are the talk of the board.

Skyble1 does not use spell check. If he happens to misspell a word, Oxford will simply change the actual spelling of it.