Printable View
Dear Atlanta Monger,
The E no doubt is a kiddyfucker, but exposing one before didn't help - he did not get banned and is now paying a premium for something special in Bangkok.
We are no fools and we know what he means by that.
These sickfucks will always find a way to convince themselves that they are not sickfucks - but they are.
Freeler: Read TFF to see where Atlanta Monger stood on this issue. He should be monitored closely.
i totally support jackson's stance on this issue - no discussion of children under the age of 18!
some posters seem to have forgotten that it's not just a moral issue or jackson's personal beliefs, it's also a legal issue. if wsg ever starts to discuss **** sex in earnest, then the forum will open itself up to legal scrutiny and possibly be shut down for good. and if wsg is shut down, then we all lose out.
if "the e" wants to go someplace where the lac is lower than 18 (as low as 13 in some countries, if not lower), then he is welcome to do so quietly, on his own time. but i don't need or want to read about it here on wsg.
EHole,
I remember you from the past on this board, probably in the NOVA forum as being particularly obnoxious in your presentation of contrary viewpoints. While I am in support of the basic premise of "freedom of speach", that does not extend to this subject, not because I have some self-appointed young girl guardian delusions, but rather because it brings unwanted and unecessary attention from LE who specifically scan these type boards for illegal activity discussions. By so doing, you are not only in violation of Jackson's rules on this subject, but are more importantly potentially endangering fellow members.
You are very well aware of the majority of the members viewpoint on this sensitive subject so my question for you is "Why bring it up at all?" Is it merely to get a rise out of people so that you get what I perceive to be the attention you crave, but do not get? Well, it's the WRONG kind of attention dude! I have no problem with you having any personal predilictions in the sexual department, just learn to keep your mouth shut when they will cause problems. As you can see by the number of negative posts here alone in this slightly obscure little corner, this is NOT a subject that many are interested in. Drop it!
The E,
With all the distinguished attacks you've been subjected to of late, let me urge you not to rise to the bait.
Also remember the famous phrase:
[i]Illegitimi non carborundum.[/i]
And personally, I think there is a world of difference between 18 year old and 35 year old pussy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Best to sample both on a regular basis.
-Uncle Otto
[quote]And personally, I think there is a world of difference between 18 year old and 35 year old pussy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Best to sample both on a regular basis.[/quote]Well spoken, I am pleased that we agree on something - LOL
Have a great day,
LoveLOS
Rev. Skinless,
To save y'all time RTFF, here is my one and only post (dated 2-22-2004) regarding the "under 18" subject prior to The E recently bringing it back to light:
[url]www.wsgforum.com/vforum/showthread.php?s=&postid=179789#post179789
[/url]
[quote]Jackson,
I agree 100% with ChicagoBoy23. I think your previous policy of the topic being completely forbidden in any context is the safest choice for all concerned.
If the WSG forum is truly for "men seeking women...", then there is no real need to ever mention children here.
I advocate the removal of all posts related to the topic, including the dedicated forum thread.
I don't consider this to be an infringement of free speech, just smart moderating - something you do quite well.
Thanks for your consideration.
Regards,
Atlanta Monger[/quote]
But thanks for keeping an eye out for me!
- AM
Freeler: As only one example, check out this Letter to the Editor from Atlanta Monger on 18 February. Some of us do RTTF and some of us do fuck legal age only. And we do not want to be associated with AM and others who are in denial of their own (criminal) tendencies. AM is not a serious person. Same same BJ.
nta Monger
Senior Member
Reports: 133
Jackson (editor),
While I fully support your efforts for this fine forum, I think most members (senior and otherwise) have had about enough of the Skinless rant.
Not content to flame away in the special forum you provided, he has now moved his personal battle to other forum threads, including this one. None of his recent posts belong here, as they are NOT 'letters to the editor'.
I understand that Skinless has been a frequent and valuable contributor in the past, but no more - he's merely become a nuisance.
Please act on the behalf of all forum members to reduce the impact of this tirade - perhaps ban him to his own personal rant thread, i.e. Samus Aram?
Thanks,
Atlanta Monger
Gee, so now daring to disagree at any point with the tactics of the great Skinless automatically means one is a closet pedophile, no matter whatever else one posts. What a crock.
Watch yourself, AM.
Skinless,
DAMMIT: You're on vacation.
Go fuck 'Tet', Dah1, Dah2, Dah3 , Dah4, Nik, CC, Toothlady, Som and the rest of 'em!
[b]jackson: please note, yet again, the dismissive attitude zop and the other suspects adopt to having sex with minors. this is the slippery slope. as i have read zop's "work" and as i cannot help but to fall over his posts which pepper the entire site, i stand over my comments. the fact that that lump of shit labels fucking legal age women with under age girls is the very same tactic nambla adopt. but what ese can we explain from a wanker?[/b]
freeler: i now see zop, the most disgusting of all our contributors, has surfaced here. this would be poet, said he was finished with me as if i was one of the **** "women" who stock the blow job bars and who he can dismiss with a small baht bill. the fact is every single one of the assholes who took the traveller road have serious cases to answer. none more so than el sicko himself, the m muse.
am flames away defending advocates of child sex prostitution and like bill clinton, he cannot remember. some of us do rtff - and some of actually cotnribute information.
zop meanwhile, has most recently helped to fuck up the pattaya board with lbj,. the great lawyer and defender of traveller, and a few other geniuses.
zop, stick to your hypocrisy. go write a fucking poem. or, to put it aother way, please jerk off somewhere else. you disgust me more than anyone else here. so please fuck off you bald headed fake.
freeler: no sign of toothlady. you must have spoiled her. also, in nong khai, the deaf and dumb one left the white brothel. avoid her replacement.
skinless, get a life.
my position on the **** issue is crystal clear, and in total alignment with that of jackson's.
in my 'letter to the editor' post, i didn't defend traveler; i expressed an opinion regarding your nonstop and overzealous tactics that were polluting the forum at the time.
although your purpose at the time may have been lofty, your chosen approach was the low road, full of fabrication and lies (very similar to what you're doing again now).
anybody with a brain who can read tff knows that, and your current lies about me won't change anybody's mind.
you see, there is more than one way to skinless a cat. i don't need to be a ranting and lying fool to get my point across.
- am
Jackson, please note again that Skinless cannot understand the difference between disliking with his hyperbolic lynch mob posts and being against sex with minors. He feels one cannot possibly be against sex with minors and still manage to disagree with his disgusting and divisive McCarthy-like smear tactics.
Skinless, I said I was finished with you because you stopped being the reasonable and delightful poster with whom I had many interesting back-and-forth discussions over the last couple of years and decided instead to lash out at anyone who at all disagreed with you in the slightest way. Your last post simply reinforces that fact.
Rev,
I see now why you are pissed at AM, but AM is not defending your antangonist (the T word), nor child prostitution in his comment. On the other hand, he is in complete agreement with you on those matters. I don't see the conflict?
I ask you, as a friend on this forum, to back down on this one.
LoveLOS
in the midst of rows about sex with **** i have noticed that jackson has banned at least 3 users in a row because of their responses to the photos of muslim women. i think the policy of posting photos of muslim women needs serious review.