Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy:6599
Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pull-news.sonic-news.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
From: Doc NP-f31
Newsgroups: alt.fan.utb.naughty-boy
Subject: Re: Thanks Doc for sending the cops my way
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:18:24 -0400
Message-ID: <5bpc69duai486d6d8qg1944947b6a82rea@4ax.com>
References: <0001HW.CE8AD25600B9E8D5B01029DF@news.easynews.com> <ni3c6957njeoddpmrcq929uqciu15g935m@4ax.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.00.32.1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 119
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4678e449.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=a:Ummm^1eCYWIOATn\8amXL?0kYOcDh@ZPJkWA]>RSBT@F67:iRmNdZKdim;<8^L;Q1UiUfab_h]SlJ>;5_j;DRRYY0N:nJXmBR8JMW4ihe93UmAMd<JfHRe\
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 02:01:33 -0400, 4s00th
<formerly_4s00th@hushmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:45:10 -0700, Nootrac <not@this.mail> wrote:
>
>>
>>I hope your happy
>
>I think you've got it wrong -- Doc is a lovely person. That he
>disagreed with or disapproved of your post of ARTWORK would not have
>resulted in him contacting the police. Now, if you had posted actual
>pictures of boys being harmed or tortured, then Doc probably wouldn't
>have been the ONLY ONE who would have sent the police your way,
>especially if there were any thought that YOU were directly involved
>in the boys being harmed or refused to prevent them from being harmed
>for your or other's sexual gratification. But since you posted
>artwork, the most you would have gotten from him is that he kill-filed
>you; FTR, he probably will not see your original message because of
>the kill-filter, but he may see my reply to you, which is a secondary
>reason for me to reply to you.
>
>In case you missed it, his objections to your post were that some of
>them actually depicted boys being harmed while others depicted adults
>manipulating boys for the purpose of their own sexual gratification.
>Both of these things are antithical to the ideals of boy-love, though
>certainly common enough in many pedophiles.
>
>To explain the difference, while boy-lovers are sexually attracted to
>boys the same way that pedophiles are, boy-lovers actually care about
>the boys to whom they are attracted and put their needs (the boys'
>needs, that is) ahead of their own desires. In most cases, that means
>that a boy-lover never actually has sex with a boy because there are
>just too many ways that such sexual involvement can cause harm to a
>boy. Many of us have known boys who were willing to have sex with us,
>but chose not to because we knew the boys were not feeling the same
>kind of feelings that we were. Yeah, they were willing, but they were
>willing only because they wanted to please us, not because they wanted
>to have sex with us. More specifically, they loved us but not in a
>sexual way. Boy-lovers are a subset of pedophiles. Unfortunately,
>there are plenty of pedophiles who care only about their own desires
>and are all too willing to manipulate boys to get what they want
>without regard to how such things can harm a boy. And the bigger
>problem for us as boy-lovers is that such people get big headlines and
>make people think that all pedophiles are exactly like that; thus we
>are condemned by their behaviors simply because we have some of the
>same feelings that they do.
>
>I hope this helps you understand a little more about why Doc objected
>to your posts -- and what we are really about.
>
>Sincerely,
>Steve
>
>-- l00sescrew@hushmail.com
Hello 4s00th,
I offer you a standing ovation. Well said, and thank you for bringing
Nootrac's post to my attention.
Love ya,
Doc
NP-f31
Nootrac,
While I am not surprised that you have been contacted by the
authorities, you jump to conclusions when you accuse me of having
contacted them. It has been my mission to openly be a boylover in our
increasingly hostile society and while doing so be completely left
alone by the authorities. I have been successful for 14 years now.
Here is the extent of my involvement with you, and your reply:
>On Oct 4, 2013, Doc NP-f31 wrote:
>
>> This is such insulting bullshit.
>>
>> ***PLONK***
>
>I guess you all don't want the update to the comic.
>I thought you perverts would like it.
>Don't you all just want to fuck kids?
Remember that? So, if I'm the pervert, why are YOU the one the
authorities contacted? If you have any questions about who turned you
in, I'd suggest you check out Cosmos' posts in The Fort that offer
proof that a regular poster to this group (and The Fort) Fort Kittens,
human talker Rover, Pig Castrator Mus.cled George, etc, etc is, and
has been, a CP police officer for almost as long as The Fort has been
around. Ironically, he has also been one of the most prolific posters
of 'digitally altered' boys and naked boys.
I see that one of his entities is completely thrilled to see that you
think I reported you. Well, I didn't. I don't roll that way. I didn't
need to, because he, and more compentent cops, are watching always. My
post to you was as much a warning as it was a statement. I did not
post your trash cartoons, you did that. I don't want anything to do
with them. They are antithetical to everything I believe in. You
posted them and you are responsible for your own actions.
If I did you wrong in any way, it was by not posting my reasons for
rejecting your cartoons. If I had done that, then perhaps you wouldn't
have continued posting them and given the cops more evidence. For not
warning you, I apologize. But your cartoons REALLY pissed me off. Boys
are NOT sex objects. Boys are NOT for our use. Boys are the greatest
treasure we are given. Their beauty is the gift that we, as boylovers,
are shown. Boys are for us to cherish and protect and love with
respect.
Do yourself a favor and get a lawyer. I hope you are able to avoid any
serious punishment. If you are, I hope you will return to this group,
or The Fort and we can have a real discussion on boys and boylovers.
Good luck,
Doc
NP-f31
|
|