Topic: Yeah, I'm done here guys and girls.
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #92,227
It was fun but now it's not. Child abuse is where I draw the line. Bye.| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| ionize tg2merrin | 3 | 19% | |
| ionize tg2merrin | 10 | 63% | |
| ionize tg2merrin | 3 | 19% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,047,220
NB4 TG says;
"Dear Lord, here we go again with child abuse threads. Is there something you'd like to share?"
And then he word salads everyone's comments.
"Dear Lord, here we go again with child abuse threads. Is there something you'd like to share?"
And then he word salads everyone's comments.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,321
Dear Lord, here we go again with child abuse threads. Is there something you'd like to share?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,373
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,376
Ananthanarayanan M R joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,381
yeah idk why mods keep defending tg
tteh !IAMGAYLOL joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,383
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,384
@previous (tteh !IAMGAYLOL)
Stop defending him by holding him to the same standards you hold every single user to, you stupid fuck.
Stop defending him by holding him to the same standards you hold every single user to, you stupid fuck.
Indy joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,386
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,387
@previous (Indy)
Yes. The only way we break our own rules is letting permabanned people post (minus Eco). We always err towards leniency here, because if we tried to enforce every single complaint the way posters wanted, you would be permabanned, along with like probably ten other users.
Yes. The only way we break our own rules is letting permabanned people post (minus Eco). We always err towards leniency here, because if we tried to enforce every single complaint the way posters wanted, you would be permabanned, along with like probably ten other users.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,389
@1,047,373 (E)
> Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
The most glorious novel of the greatest 20th century virtuoso stylist of the English language.
> Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
The most glorious novel of the greatest 20th century virtuoso stylist of the English language.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 43 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,393
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,462
@1,047,383 (tteh !IAMGAYLOL)
Why doesn't his pedo schtick get censored like, for example, the "could anything be more intimate and schtick" schtick?
Why doesn't his pedo schtick get censored like, for example, the "could anything be more intimate and schtick" schtick?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 50 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,468
@previous (J)
> Why doesn't his pedo schtick get censored like, for example, the "could anything be more intimate and schtick" schtick?
Which "pedo schtick" would this be?
> Why doesn't his pedo schtick get censored like, for example, the "could anything be more intimate and schtick" schtick?
Which "pedo schtick" would this be?
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 41 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,470
@previous (K)
Small example in this thread:
Anon B: NB4 TG word salads your comment.
On cue, TG word salads Anon E's comment into a quotation from every child molester's favorite novel.
Subtle, but still pedo schtick.
Small example in this thread:
Anon B: NB4 TG word salads your comment.
On cue, TG word salads Anon E's comment into a quotation from every child molester's favorite novel.
Subtle, but still pedo schtick.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,477
@previous (J)
The Lolita thing felt borderline to me but I didn't do anything because I hate doing anything. I try to be very permissive here so people don't whine about modabuse constantly.
The Lolita thing felt borderline to me but I didn't do anything because I hate doing anything. I try to be very permissive here so people don't whine about modabuse constantly.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 24 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,482
@1,047,470 (J)
> Small example in this thread:
> Anon B: NB4 TG word salads your comment.
> On cue, TG word salads Anon E's comment into a quotation from every child molester's favorite novel.
> Subtle, but still pedo schtick.
I'm going to ask you a question now and I'll take you on your word to answer it honestly: have you actually read this novel that the New York Times Book Review voted the 4th greatest novel of the English language?
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/20/books/ulysses-at-top-as-panel-picks-100-best-novels.html
I was mockingly told I would made a "word salad" out of the post. I responded with one of the most famous passages in English literature by that "salad of racial genes". If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do) reference was lost on you, so be it. But don't blame me if an ignorant person automatically reduces one of the accepted masterpieces of Western literature to, how did you call it, "every child molester's favorite novel" (if that is so then I can't imagine how disappointed they must be when buying a book hoping for cheap smut and finding themselves reading incredibly dense literary allusions to Poe and Joyce).
> Small example in this thread:
> Anon B: NB4 TG word salads your comment.
> On cue, TG word salads Anon E's comment into a quotation from every child molester's favorite novel.
> Subtle, but still pedo schtick.
I'm going to ask you a question now and I'll take you on your word to answer it honestly: have you actually read this novel that the New York Times Book Review voted the 4th greatest novel of the English language?
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/20/books/ulysses-at-top-as-panel-picks-100-best-novels.html
I was mockingly told I would made a "word salad" out of the post. I responded with one of the most famous passages in English literature by that "salad of racial genes". If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do) reference was lost on you, so be it. But don't blame me if an ignorant person automatically reduces one of the accepted masterpieces of Western literature to, how did you call it, "every child molester's favorite novel" (if that is so then I can't imagine how disappointed they must be when buying a book hoping for cheap smut and finding themselves reading incredibly dense literary allusions to Poe and Joyce).
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,483
@1,047,477 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> The Lolita thing felt borderline to me but I didn't do anything because I hate doing anything.
What about it felt "borderline" to you? If I had quoted from Lawrence's Women In Love, would that have been "borderline" to you? If I had quoted from the final section of Joyce's Ulysses, would that have been "borderline"? Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, the expurgated version of which (no "c*nt-eating" of Tanya in this school thank-you very much!) is taught in university literature courses?
It's not my fault if certain people here get triggered by a word they likely only know from porn references.
> The Lolita thing felt borderline to me but I didn't do anything because I hate doing anything.
What about it felt "borderline" to you? If I had quoted from Lawrence's Women In Love, would that have been "borderline" to you? If I had quoted from the final section of Joyce's Ulysses, would that have been "borderline"? Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, the expurgated version of which (no "c*nt-eating" of Tanya in this school thank-you very much!) is taught in university literature courses?
It's not my fault if certain people here get triggered by a word they likely only know from porn references.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U triple-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,484
@1,047,477 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I try to be very permissive here so people don't whine about modabuse constantly.
Ironic quotations of classic literature to a bonehead who waded in way out of his depth with the "word salad" comment is now "permissiveness"? It's not my fault if the small subsection of users here who go crawling around the threads seeking out an opportunity to start rambling on about pedophilia get effortlessly triggered.
> I try to be very permissive here so people don't whine about modabuse constantly.
Ironic quotations of classic literature to a bonehead who waded in way out of his depth with the "word salad" comment is now "permissiveness"? It's not my fault if the small subsection of users here who go crawling around the threads seeking out an opportunity to start rambling on about pedophilia get effortlessly triggered.
jodi !ariasXXmaE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,486
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> It's not my fault if the small subsection of users here who go crawling around the threads seeking out an opportunity to start rambling on about pedophilia get effortlessly triggered.
but that's your thing though
> It's not my fault if the small subsection of users here who go crawling around the threads seeking out an opportunity to start rambling on about pedophilia get effortlessly triggered.
but that's your thing though
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,489
@previous (jodi !ariasXXmaE)
> but that's your thing though
True to an extent, but my point has always been to poke fun at a very bizarre subculture on these boards (not so much here but certainly on Tinychan) whereby people seem to have an obsessive need to start calling each other pedophiles and writing out (in the case of Syntax for example) genuinely sickening posts about child abuse (what's with his disturbing fixation on the "ripping out children's anuses" imagery??). I've tried to scale back how much I provoke them (difficult because it really does amuse me to do it), but every once in a while I see an opportunity. As for example here, with the "word salad" reference. Truth be told I honestly thought it would be picked up upon but it seems not, which is frankly a depressing example of the dumbing down of Western culture, but I digress.
> but that's your thing though
True to an extent, but my point has always been to poke fun at a very bizarre subculture on these boards (not so much here but certainly on Tinychan) whereby people seem to have an obsessive need to start calling each other pedophiles and writing out (in the case of Syntax for example) genuinely sickening posts about child abuse (what's with his disturbing fixation on the "ripping out children's anuses" imagery??). I've tried to scale back how much I provoke them (difficult because it really does amuse me to do it), but every once in a while I see an opportunity. As for example here, with the "word salad" reference. Truth be told I honestly thought it would be picked up upon but it seems not, which is frankly a depressing example of the dumbing down of Western culture, but I digress.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,493
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> n the case of Syntax for example) genuinely sickening posts about child abuse
The Pedophile Catholic Church keeps sickening child abuse in the nightly news. Billions of Pedophile Church $$$ Spent - Parishes going bankrupt - Properity sold as courts force the Pedophile Christian Church to sell property and MAYBE One Priest is excommunicated and the others who do not end up in prison are sent to Pope owned spas at full Priest pay with not even a slap on hands by the Officials of the Church.
> What about it felt "borderline" to you? If I had quoted from Lawrence's Women In Love
What kind of Priest reads Lawrence's Women In Love, or Lolita.
AND AND
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do)
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do)
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do)
With Pedo Matt, Grover and newbie Pedo Bert and the NZ guy, I can see how your so called education as a Fake Priest is working out for you,
Just STOP Fucking over children and stick to your new Male Child Bride as in theory his parents sold him to you.
> n the case of Syntax for example) genuinely sickening posts about child abuse
The Pedophile Catholic Church keeps sickening child abuse in the nightly news. Billions of Pedophile Church $$$ Spent - Parishes going bankrupt - Properity sold as courts force the Pedophile Christian Church to sell property and MAYBE One Priest is excommunicated and the others who do not end up in prison are sent to Pope owned spas at full Priest pay with not even a slap on hands by the Officials of the Church.
> What about it felt "borderline" to you? If I had quoted from Lawrence's Women In Love
What kind of Priest reads Lawrence's Women In Love, or Lolita.
AND AND
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do)
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do)
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do)
With Pedo Matt, Grover and newbie Pedo Bert and the NZ guy, I can see how your so called education as a Fake Priest is working out for you,
Just STOP Fucking over children and stick to your new Male Child Bride as in theory his parents sold him to you.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,503
@previous (Syntax)
> What kind of Priest reads Lawrence's Women In Love, or Lolita.
What kind of priest reads the acknowledged masterpieces of 2 of the greatest writers of 20th century English prose?
What's fascinating there by the way is that you picked out the Lawrence and Nabokov titles but not Joyce, which, if you had actually read any of those novels (you of course haven't) you would know Ulysses is by far the most scandalous of the 3 (George Orwell joked in his semi-autobiographical novel Keep The Aspidistra Flying about the time he worked in a bookshop and would gleefully sell Women In Love to would-be perverts who only knew about its reputation but not its painfully bland contents). I guess "Ulysses" isn't a title that sounds indecent to you :)
As for the rest of your post...please stop writing extremely disturbing child sex posts. We are discussing literature here.
> What kind of Priest reads Lawrence's Women In Love, or Lolita.
What kind of priest reads the acknowledged masterpieces of 2 of the greatest writers of 20th century English prose?
What's fascinating there by the way is that you picked out the Lawrence and Nabokov titles but not Joyce, which, if you had actually read any of those novels (you of course haven't) you would know Ulysses is by far the most scandalous of the 3 (George Orwell joked in his semi-autobiographical novel Keep The Aspidistra Flying about the time he worked in a bookshop and would gleefully sell Women In Love to would-be perverts who only knew about its reputation but not its painfully bland contents). I guess "Ulysses" isn't a title that sounds indecent to you :)
As for the rest of your post...please stop writing extremely disturbing child sex posts. We are discussing literature here.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,504
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > What kind of Priest reads Lawrence's Women In Love, or Lolita.
Actually...LOL!!!!! Reading this back, you don't realize that 'Lawrence' is the name of the author do you (D.H.Lawrence)? You think there's a book called "Lawrence's Women In Love". Presumably some kind of Arabian sapphic escapade?
> > What kind of Priest reads Lawrence's Women In Love, or Lolita.
Actually...LOL!!!!! Reading this back, you don't realize that 'Lawrence' is the name of the author do you (D.H.Lawrence)? You think there's a book called "Lawrence's Women In Love". Presumably some kind of Arabian sapphic escapade?
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,535
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Notice you got nick picky with reply - OF Course I No it's D.H.Lawrence, because as Teen that was go to reading along with Lady Chatterley's Lover.
Banned books back in my day made the reading all that much more better.
> As for the rest of your post...please stop writing extremely disturbing child sex posts.
I think you're actually proud of how the Catholic Church has become Infamous as the Go2 Pedophile Catholic Church - It makes you feel more at home as your Fake Priest Shtick abounds here.
Fact is ''Extremely disturbing child sex abuse is what your life is all about. UR part of the Problem n not the solution and UR damn proud of that fact.
Notice you got nick picky with reply - OF Course I No it's D.H.Lawrence, because as Teen that was go to reading along with Lady Chatterley's Lover.
Banned books back in my day made the reading all that much more better.
> As for the rest of your post...please stop writing extremely disturbing child sex posts.
I think you're actually proud of how the Catholic Church has become Infamous as the Go2 Pedophile Catholic Church - It makes you feel more at home as your Fake Priest Shtick abounds here.
Fact is ''Extremely disturbing child sex abuse is what your life is all about. UR part of the Problem n not the solution and UR damn proud of that fact.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,540
Anonymous B replied with this 6 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,541
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > Fake Priest Shtick
>
> That part is actually not shtick. I really am a priest.
No. No you're not.
> > Fake Priest Shtick
>
> That part is actually not shtick. I really am a priest.
No. No you're not.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,542
@previous (B)
> > > Fake Priest Shtick
> >
> > That part is actually not shtick. I really am a priest.
>
> No. No you're not.
Yes. Yes I am.
> > > Fake Priest Shtick
> >
> > That part is actually not shtick. I really am a priest.
>
> No. No you're not.
Yes. Yes I am.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,548
@1,047,477 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> The Lolita thing felt borderline to me
"I like Lolita" - Kook.
http://minichan.org/topic/92269#reply_1047533
Damn that woman and her disgusting borderline pedo interests, eh? Or maybe she's actually read the novel and knows what it actually is.
I don't mean to hammer you on this point but one of the problems with 'our times' is morons who don't read things screaming for the silencing and banning of people (not saying you Fake Anon, but there are people here who called upon you to do it) over associations that say far more about THEM than the people they are calling to see ushered into the crucible (I've gathered you're American and must surely get that reference).
> The Lolita thing felt borderline to me
"I like Lolita" - Kook.
http://minichan.org/topic/92269#reply_1047533
Damn that woman and her disgusting borderline pedo interests, eh? Or maybe she's actually read the novel and knows what it actually is.
I don't mean to hammer you on this point but one of the problems with 'our times' is morons who don't read things screaming for the silencing and banning of people (not saying you Fake Anon, but there are people here who called upon you to do it) over associations that say far more about THEM than the people they are calling to see ushered into the crucible (I've gathered you're American and must surely get that reference).
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,549
@1,047,482 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do) reference was lost on you, so be it.
Not only was it not lost on me but it was precisely my point. Your schtick is pedo-baiting. I really don't understand why you do it or what you gain from it.
> have you actually read this novel
Yes. And I agree, it is one of the greatest pieces of English literature ever created, and by a man whose first language was Russian. To prove I've read it I'll quote one of my favorite lines from it which stuck in my mind, and which wouldn't be easy to find online: "That solemn pool of alien urine with a soggy cigarette butt disintegrating in it struck me as a crowning insult."
I still stand by my comment that it is every child molester's favorite novel.
> If the (admittedly pedo-baiting, which is what I do) reference was lost on you, so be it.
Not only was it not lost on me but it was precisely my point. Your schtick is pedo-baiting. I really don't understand why you do it or what you gain from it.
> have you actually read this novel
Yes. And I agree, it is one of the greatest pieces of English literature ever created, and by a man whose first language was Russian. To prove I've read it I'll quote one of my favorite lines from it which stuck in my mind, and which wouldn't be easy to find online: "That solemn pool of alien urine with a soggy cigarette butt disintegrating in it struck me as a crowning insult."
I still stand by my comment that it is every child molester's favorite novel.
Anonymous J double-posted this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,550
@1,047,477 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> The Lolita thing felt borderline to me but I didn't do anything because I hate doing anything. I try to be very permissive here so people don't whine about modabuse constantly.
OK, I guess. Dare I say I wish you would be even more permissive with the schtick. Yes, it's irritating, but censorship is even more so.
> The Lolita thing felt borderline to me but I didn't do anything because I hate doing anything. I try to be very permissive here so people don't whine about modabuse constantly.
OK, I guess. Dare I say I wish you would be even more permissive with the schtick. Yes, it's irritating, but censorship is even more so.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 41 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,557
@1,047,549 (J)
> I still stand by my comment that it is every child molester's favorite novel.
You're welcome to stand by it but it doesn't make it any more sensible. You seriously think the average panting child molestor gets off on page after page after page of allusions to Roman poets and Edgar Allen Poe's Annabelle Lee (Poe married his 13 year old cousin, Fake Anon - can I mention him or is it borderline?), dizzying multi-layered word play, passages of French and Latin, and a final 200 pages (the entire 2nd half of the novel) where the dolorous and hazy Dolores Haze all but disappears entirely from the novel? Because I don't. I think that, as with Lawrence's novel, they may buy it, thinking it'll be some illicit smut, and find themselves utterly lost within the first 5 pages.
> I still stand by my comment that it is every child molester's favorite novel.
You're welcome to stand by it but it doesn't make it any more sensible. You seriously think the average panting child molestor gets off on page after page after page of allusions to Roman poets and Edgar Allen Poe's Annabelle Lee (Poe married his 13 year old cousin, Fake Anon - can I mention him or is it borderline?), dizzying multi-layered word play, passages of French and Latin, and a final 200 pages (the entire 2nd half of the novel) where the dolorous and hazy Dolores Haze all but disappears entirely from the novel? Because I don't. I think that, as with Lawrence's novel, they may buy it, thinking it'll be some illicit smut, and find themselves utterly lost within the first 5 pages.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U double-posted this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,558
@1,047,550 (J)
> Dare I say I wish you would be even more permissive with the schtick. Yes, it's irritating, but censorship is even more so.
And about this. Didn't you enter this thread calling for censorship? -
@1,047,462 (J)
> Why doesn't his pedo schtick get censored like, for example, the "could anything be more intimate and schtick" schtick?
Or am I misunderstanding your first post?
> Dare I say I wish you would be even more permissive with the schtick. Yes, it's irritating, but censorship is even more so.
And about this. Didn't you enter this thread calling for censorship? -
@1,047,462 (J)
> Why doesn't his pedo schtick get censored like, for example, the "could anything be more intimate and schtick" schtick?
Or am I misunderstanding your first post?
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
tteh !IAMGAYLOL replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,566
@1,047,462 (J)
I didn't edit that topic, but probably because it's far less frequent; OTOH, Matt has been schticking here for over a decade. That thread was the fourth of the day, and had no substance at all (it was a single sentence, as it often is).
Love him or hate him, Merrin's schtick has substance and doesn't rely on making dozens of simple threads that contribute nothing and have no real value. There's only so many "lolpoots" threads we can handle.
I didn't edit that topic, but probably because it's far less frequent; OTOH, Matt has been schticking here for over a decade. That thread was the fourth of the day, and had no substance at all (it was a single sentence, as it often is).
Love him or hate him, Merrin's schtick has substance and doesn't rely on making dozens of simple threads that contribute nothing and have no real value. There's only so many "lolpoots" threads we can handle.
(Edited 14 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,583
@1,047,548 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
I respect your dedication to your craft. I wish certain other users here were as talented as you at developing and maintaining a persona.
@1,047,550 (J)
I can't speak for other mods, but I generally only edit schtick topics if it's like, their ninth one line topic of the day. The forum doesn't need that shit and it only serves to crowd out other topics on the bumps page that might actually be worth reading (to the extent that anything here is worth reading).
I respect your dedication to your craft. I wish certain other users here were as talented as you at developing and maintaining a persona.
@1,047,550 (J)
I can't speak for other mods, but I generally only edit schtick topics if it's like, their ninth one line topic of the day. The forum doesn't need that shit and it only serves to crowd out other topics on the bumps page that might actually be worth reading (to the extent that anything here is worth reading).
Anonymous J replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,608
@1,047,557 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> You're welcome to stand by it but it doesn't make it any more sensible.
And you are welcome to have your opinion.
> You seriously think the average panting child molestor [sic] gets off on page after page after page of... <snip paragraph where you wax lyrical on historical pedo literature>
I don't know, TG. Do you get off on it?
@1,047,558 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Or am I misunderstanding your first post?
Yes. I was not calling for censorship, merely trying to understand the precedent for it on this board, and I think I have my answer (thank, you mods, for your responses). Tiresomely repetitive schtick > pedo-baiting.
> You're welcome to stand by it but it doesn't make it any more sensible.
And you are welcome to have your opinion.
> You seriously think the average panting child molestor [sic] gets off on page after page after page of... <snip paragraph where you wax lyrical on historical pedo literature>
I don't know, TG. Do you get off on it?
@1,047,558 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Or am I misunderstanding your first post?
Yes. I was not calling for censorship, merely trying to understand the precedent for it on this board, and I think I have my answer (thank, you mods, for your responses). Tiresomely repetitive schtick > pedo-baiting.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,613
@previous (J)
> > You seriously think the average panting child molester gets off on page after page after page of... <snip paragraph where you wax lyrical on historical pedo literature>
I mentioned literally 2 things in the sentence you have 'snipped': Poe's poem Annabelle Lee (this is "pedo literature" to you?) and the Roman poets (Nabokov jokes about the horror of schoolboys having to endure the paradox of reading the ancients in sanitised editions). Where is this lyrical waxing of "pedo literature" you speak of? To be perfectly honest I think what's becoming clear here is that despite what you claimed, you haven't actually read the novel have you?
> I don't know, TG. Do you get off on it?
Oh so you just wanted to do this. Fair enough, carry on I guess.
> > You seriously think the average panting child molester gets off on page after page after page of... <snip paragraph where you wax lyrical on historical pedo literature>
I mentioned literally 2 things in the sentence you have 'snipped': Poe's poem Annabelle Lee (this is "pedo literature" to you?) and the Roman poets (Nabokov jokes about the horror of schoolboys having to endure the paradox of reading the ancients in sanitised editions). Where is this lyrical waxing of "pedo literature" you speak of? To be perfectly honest I think what's becoming clear here is that despite what you claimed, you haven't actually read the novel have you?
> I don't know, TG. Do you get off on it?
Oh so you just wanted to do this. Fair enough, carry on I guess.
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,667
Yep, TG is a pedo...
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,746
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,806
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,937
Anonymous D replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,047,940
Ananthanarayanan M R replied with this 6 years ago, 16 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,110
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,048,114
@previous (Ananthanarayanan M R)
Unfortunately for you, talking about bannable offenses is itself a bannable offense.
Unfortunately for you, talking about bannable offenses is itself a bannable offense.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)