Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you have any genuine concerns about the minors on this site, you should alert the moderators immediately. Child protection is a serious issue and is not a subject for forum banter.
You dont have a problem with creepy guys pretending to be something that they are not masquerading as women on sites that allow minors. But how could you, you were caught doing just that. Ouch. Creepy or what? No accusation just weird. Tell me dude did you wear a dress to get a more authentic experience?
Originally posted by FMFDude relax I just wanna know if you wore a dress thats all. Maybe you could becone an agony aunt. I saw an episode of Drake and Josh where Josh was an agony aunt and wore a dress to put him in the zone to answer all his readers questions. Maybe you're the same?
If you have any genuine concerns about the minors on this site, you should alert the moderators immediately. Child protection is a serious issue and is not a subject for forum banter.
Originally posted by FMFLost my composure? and yet I feel fine. That's weird. Just out of interest in what way have I defended Dasa? Have I not stated that his texts constitute a hate crime? Furthermore your text assumes that what Dasa did and what Duchess64 did are somehow synonymous.
And yet you seem to have lost your composure on the last few pages. Why are you not defending Duchess64 in the same way as you defended Dasa?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou characterized those who stood up to him, who engaged him and condemned what he was saying, and the moderators who took action against him, as "thought police" ~ indeed, you claimed that Dasa had been "set up by the thought police". You also denied that he was seeking to incite religious hatred, you argued that his hateful posts did not constitute a reason for banning him, and, despite the evidence found in his posts, you claimed that Dasa was "convicted for thinking".
Lost my composure? and yet I feel fine. That's weird. Just out of interest in what way have I defended Dasa?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEarlier on this thread, you said to Rank outsider: "I don't expect that if you say that you loath and hate me and I make you vomit and my wife is fat and ugly that you should be subject to recrimination", and yet you did seek recrimination for what Duchess64 said to you. Given the premise of this thread, and the things you have said on it, shouldn't you have been defending Duchess64?
[Duchess64] was banned for vilely using the forum simply as a vehicle to vilify other users.
Originally posted by FMFIf you read the thread you will see that I fully acknowledged that Dasa had committed a crime. The extent to which Dasa was goaded also could be significant and it is still my opinion that his genocidal ideas were so incapable of being carried out that its ludicrous to think of them in any other terms other than pure fantasy. Duchess64 by contrast was caught in the very act of carrying out their nefarious scheme fuelled by hatred and lust for vengeance. There they were churning up all the dirt they could dig up, her hounds all howling for blood and little ol Robbie on the menu when the swift arm of justice descended and wiped all her vile slanderous hatred away.
You characterized those who stood up to him, who engaged him and condemned what he was saying, and the moderators who took action against him, as "thought police" ~ indeed, you claimed that Dasa had been "set up by the thought police". You also denied that he was seeking to incite religious hatred, you argued that his hateful posts did not constitute a reason f ...[text shortened]... nd, despite the evidence found in his posts, you claimed that Dasa was "convicted for thinking".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDuchess64 was thinking and expressing thoughts. You defended Dasa - even though you say you fully acknowledged that Dasa had committed a crime - for thinking and expressing thoughts. Why not defend Duchess64 in the same way as you defended Dasa?
Duchess64 by contrast was caught in the very act of carrying out their nefarious scheme.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDasa's posts were fuelled by hatred and were full of "vile slanderous hatred", villification and untrue accusations, and yet you have chosen to create a whole thread to defend his right to post in this way. Can you at least accept how this all comes across as hypocrisy on your part?
Duchess64 by contrast was caught in the very act of carrying out their nefarious scheme fuelled by hatred and lust for vengeance. There they were churning up all the dirt they could dig up, her hounds all howling for blood and little ol Robbie on the menu when the swift arm of justice descended and wiped all her vile slanderous hatred away.
Originally posted by FMFNo that is where you are wrong. Duchess64 was caught red handed in the act of slanderously attempting to vilify someone by vile insinuation That is an overt act outwith mere thought. Hatred manifest in action. Also I stated at the outset of my thread that it was not essentially about Dasa nor even the things he said. How you could have failed to notice the fact I cannot say either way it makes a mockery of the idea that the thread was created to defend Dasa.
Duchess64 was thinking and expressing thoughts. You defended Dasa - even though you say you fully acknowledged that Dasa had committed a crime - for thinking and expressing thoughts. Why not defend Duchess64 in the same way as you defended Dasa?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut, for example, Dasa repeatedly and explicitly accused me of supporting terrorism when I clearly did not. This was a slanderous and "overt act" and "hatred manifest in action" surely? And yet you defended his right to say such things and described him as a victim of the "thought police". You are clearly applying a double standard.
No that is where you are wrong Duchess64 was caught red handed in the act of slanderously attempting to vilify someone by vile insinuation This is an overt act out with mere thought. Hatred manifest in action.
Originally posted by FMFMy thread was not about Dasa nor the things he said it was about the censure of thought. I stated this several times. Dasa was a mere prop. I have really little idea what Dasa said for as I also stated I rarely read his text but it did not matter because he was not the essence of my thread.
But, for example, Dasa repeatedly and explicitly accused me of supporting terrorism when I clearly did not. This was a slanderous and "overt act" and "hatred manifest in action" surely? And yet you defended his right to say such things and described him as a victim of the "thought police". You are clearly applying a double standard.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf it wasn't Dasa you were defending by claiming had been "set up by the thought police", then who was it?
Also I stated at the outset of my thread that it was not essentially about Dasa nor even the things he said. How you could have failed to notice the fact I cannot say either way it makes a mockery of the idea that the thread was created to defend Dasa.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDasa's freedom of thought was not at any time curtailed or infringed. You defended his freedom of speech, regardless of what he said, so then why did you not defend Duchess64's freedom of speech, regardless of what Duchess64 said?
My thread was not about Dasa nor the things he said it was about the censure of thought. I stated this several times. Dasa was a mere prop.