balls wrote:

And now you shut down the questioning.


Fact: It is not fucking normal to have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, "legal" or not.

You, have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, and have not ONCE acknowledged that it's reasonable to question that.

And, now you're saying it's not.


After you settle in to your withdrawal, ask yourself this:

"IF 15 WERE 'LEGAL', WOULD I HAVE PICTURES OF NAKED 15 YEAR OLDS?"

I am willing to bet he would go much lower. He has been deflecting like a ten-armed goalie ever since he has been confronted about his sick shit. If he had any sense of honor, he would slither away. But, sickos have no honor.

balls wrote:

And now you shut down the questioning.


Fact: It is not fucking normal to have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, "legal" or not.

You, have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, and have not ONCE acknowledged that it's reasonable to question that.

And, now you're saying it's not.


After you settle in to your withdrawal, ask yourself this:

"IF 15 WERE 'LEGAL', WOULD I HAVE PICTURES OF NAKED 15 YEAR OLDS?"

It would be perfectly fine with him, because he is sick. And he likes little girls with prepubescent bodies, so the younger the better.

BTW, he acknowledges he has posted 2 pictures of simulated teens...

2

hahahha

more like 600 I would say... but he doesn't see it... bc he is sick!

And I totally agree with you Balls, this is not funny at all.

Out of the thousands of pictures I posted, only two meet that description

its a joke
a sad pathetic joke




thats not r2 d2


thats k2 k2

Bat2 wrote:

balls wrote:

And now you shut down the questioning.


Fact: It is not fucking normal to have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, "legal" or not.

You, have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, and have not ONCE acknowledged that it's reasonable to question that.

And, now you're saying it's not.


After you settle in to your withdrawal, ask yourself this:

"IF 15 WERE 'LEGAL', WOULD I HAVE PICTURES OF NAKED 15 YEAR OLDS?"

I am willing to bet he would go much lower. He has been deflecting like a ten-armed goalie ever since he has been confronted about his sick shit. If he had any sense of honor, he would slither away. But, sickos have no honor.

Unless he responds to this question with an unwavering "FUCK NO", or someone proves to me that he has nothing to do with this site, I'm fucking out of here.

balls wrote:

Bat2 wrote:

balls wrote:

And now you shut down the questioning.


Fact: It is not fucking normal to have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, "legal" or not.

You, have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, and have not ONCE acknowledged that it's reasonable to question that.

And, now you're saying it's not.


After you settle in to your withdrawal, ask yourself this:

"IF 15 WERE 'LEGAL', WOULD I HAVE PICTURES OF NAKED 15 YEAR OLDS?"

I am willing to bet he would go much lower. He has been deflecting like a ten-armed goalie ever since he has been confronted about his sick shit. If he had any sense of honor, he would slither away. But, sickos have no honor.

Unless he responds to this question with an unwavering "FUCK NO", or someone proves to me that he has nothing to do with this site, I'm fucking out of here.

That's what I am trying to find out too, nothing good comes from that guy, and if he is involved in this site I wouldn't like to participate any longer.

feathers wrote:

balls wrote:

Bat2 wrote:

balls wrote:

And now you shut down the questioning.


Fact: It is not fucking normal to have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, "legal" or not.

You, have an ass load of pictures of naked teenagers, and have not ONCE acknowledged that it's reasonable to question that.

And, now you're saying it's not.


After you settle in to your withdrawal, ask yourself this:

"IF 15 WERE 'LEGAL', WOULD I HAVE PICTURES OF NAKED 15 YEAR OLDS?"

I am willing to bet he would go much lower. He has been deflecting like a ten-armed goalie ever since he has been confronted about his sick shit. If he had any sense of honor, he would slither away. But, sickos have no honor.

Unless he responds to this question with an unwavering "FUCK NO", or someone proves to me that he has nothing to do with this site, I'm fucking out of here.

That's what I am trying to find out too, nothing good comes from that guy, and if he is involved in this site I wouldn't like to participate any longer.

oh c'mon. You are all staying and you know it. Some are even paying for a banner LOL

I'm staying because my requirement has been met.

Fuck fr*nce. Fuck all y'all.

balls wrote:

I'm staying because my requirement has been met.

Fuck fr*nce. Fuck all y'all.

lol. PM?

Just trolling, right?

www.fuckfrance.com . . .

Wow. That was easy. Holy crap.

NOZZLE wrote:

TheMadPoet wrote:

No, I was referring to Nozzle

So why would someone post (repeatedly) nudes of Brook Sheilds at 12 oiled up and made up?

Fair question I think.

The first time I posted that photo, which by the way has been adjudicated by a federal district court judge to be art and not pornography, it was part of a discussion and I copied a link posted by I think Axel.B.

I posted it again recently, again as part of a discussion.

What you are observing is people recoiling in disgust at what you sprinkle around here.

Like I said, time to throw in the towel and head someplace else.

So, your argument is, you posted it because it was legal, so that makes it OK.

Gosh, does that sound familiar?

The difference between you and I is that I draw the line at 18, even tho the law says I don't have to, but you don't (with everyone's blessing).

TheMadPoet wrote:

NOZZLE wrote:

TheMadPoet wrote:

No, I was referring to Nozzle

So why would someone post (repeatedly) nudes of Brook Sheilds at 12 oiled up and made up?

Fair question I think.

The first time I posted that photo, which by the way has been adjudicated by a federal district court judge to be art and not pornography, it was part of a discussion and I copied a link posted by I think Axel.B.

I posted it again recently, again as part of a discussion.

What you are observing is people recoiling in disgust at what you sprinkle around here.

Like I said, time to throw in the towel and head someplace else.

So, your argument is, you posted it because it was legal, so that makes it OK.

Gosh, does that sound familiar?

The difference between you and I is that I draw the line at 18, even tho the law says I don't have to, but you don't (with everyone's blessing).

Shut the fuck up, you God damn retard. Don't try to play lawyer, with a lawyer, it just makes you look stupider than you already are.

You have page after page of 12 year old looking women in your photo gallery. You are a certified scum bag. I would not let you within 2 miles of a children's playground.

I'd shoot the fucker on sight if he came anywhere near my kids.

geebart wrote:

TheMadPoet wrote:

NOZZLE wrote:

TheMadPoet wrote:

No, I was referring to Nozzle

So why would someone post (repeatedly) nudes of Brook Sheilds at 12 oiled up and made up?

Fair question I think.

The first time I posted that photo, which by the way has been adjudicated by a federal district court judge to be art and not pornography, it was part of a discussion and I copied a link posted by I think Axel.B.

I posted it again recently, again as part of a discussion.

What you are observing is people recoiling in disgust at what you sprinkle around here.

Like I said, time to throw in the towel and head someplace else.

So, your argument is, you posted it because it was legal, so that makes it OK.

Gosh, does that sound familiar?

The difference between you and I is that I draw the line at 18, even tho the law says I don't have to, but you don't (with everyone's blessing).

Shut the fuck up, you God damn retard. Don't try to play lawyer, with a lawyer, it just makes you look stupider than you already are.

You have page after page of 12 year old looking women in your photo gallery. You are a certified scum bag. I would not let you within 2 miles of a children's playground.

Nah, I actually draw the line at 18, not at just what can be legally posted without going to jail.

I'm not even close to breaking the law.

Now why don't you post and defend Nozzle's right to post actual admitted fully nude, oiled and lipsticked 12 year old children?

I don't care if it is legal, I think it is a line that shouldn't have been crossed.

Then he posts this thread to attack me? Seriously?

because met art

herge

amoure angles and jj girls dont cater to pedophiles

NAH

silly people it is legal


zzzz

done

enjoy

pffft ignore the idiot pedophile


nozzel on youre original post and thread topic:

how long ya think before he earned the family's trust ?
how long before that little girl was off somewhere crying her eyes out in a dirty motel room ?

ya know how they operate

sometimes they work on a family for months
from home and when they get there

we've beaten it to death

and that culture

whats scary is how ingrained it is .
i dont know how many articles Ive posted where the majority of customers who go to brothels to abuse underage girls are natives

ive seen it first hand in india and china
ITS DISTURBING

thats why pedophiles and sex tourist are attracted to these people and thier dirty third world shitholes like cambodia

they almost fit in

i've heard his stupid "it happens in the west "to along with his "poverty" arguments BUT those are so very easily shredded

they can get just as retarded and when he gets shot down he just reverts to name calling and trolling