Columbia professor is charged with incest

I don't care who is a hypocrite and who is not. There will be no suggestion of any sexual acts with any children on this board. We've shown restraint. You can go elsewhere where they allow pervs to imagine that kind of sick illegal activity and massage their fantasies "aloud" and in all their interwebs glory for all to see, but that IS NOT HERE.
 
Damocles said:
I don't care who is a hypocrite and who is not. There will be no suggestion of any sexual acts with any children on this board. We've shown restraint. You can go elsewhere where they allow pervs to imagine that kind of sick illegal activity and massage their fantasies "aloud" and in all their interwebs glory for all to see, but that IS NOT HERE.
Click to expand...




CLOSE THIS THREAD!!​
 
Damocles said:
I don't care who is a hypocrite and who is not. There will be no suggestion of any sexual acts with any children on this board. We've shown restraint. You can go elsewhere where they allow pervs to imagine that kind of sick illegal activity and massage their fantasies "aloud" and in all their interwebs glory for all to see, but that IS NOT HERE.
Click to expand...
Beefy assumed that the word "daughter" in my post meant "child", but made a different assumption in other posts that discussed the exact issue.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
It might stop, if you did. For someone who hates it so much, you sure feed it a lot.

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

You have the power to stop your insanity.

Concept.
Click to expand...

Have I said I hated it?
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Correction:

You whine about it so much one would believe you hate it.

I get it now. It hurts so good, eh?
Click to expand...

Whine? I call SM on his using that topic as a diversion when he starts getting soundly whipped in a debate. By pointing it out, it ruins it as a diversion.

Actually, I have said that I find the whole subject amusing.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Beefy assumed that the word "daughter" in my post meant "child", but made a different assumption in other posts that discussed the exact issue.
Click to expand...
The main difference was the personal nature of the post where you named a specific question about a poster and whom they acted sexually with. Stop trying to justify your post. The nature of this discussion is problematic, we allow it because it is news. However suggesting that any poster participates in any illegal activity with children will not be tolerated, nor will any explicit descriptions of such activity even in relation to others who are not members of the board.

Please pay particular attention to the last sentence of rule 12.

"Do not suggest encounters with another poster's child."

Now you can attempt to justify, or you can just stop that kind of rubbish. It's up to you. I know what we'll do.
 
As for other posts on the thread that actually deal with the subject.

My question never was about the legality, in that state they have laws against the activity. My question was specific, 'Why is it that when two adults participated in the "crime" was only one of them charged?'

Two adults chose to participate in what is apparently a crime, only one of them appears to be facing consequences.
 
WinterBorn said:
Whine? I call SM on his using that topic as a diversion when he starts getting soundly whipped in a debate. By pointing it out, it ruins it as a diversion.

Actually, I have said that I find the whole subject amusing.
Click to expand...

Obfuscation. You've whined incessantly about it. You can stick a feather in its hat and call it "Macaroni" all you like, Solitary.

You can't own your duplicity so you twist, turn, and dress it up good and proper then claim amusement. Fail.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
 
Damocles said:
As for other posts on the thread that actually deal with the subject.

My question never was about the legality, in that state they have laws against the activity. My question was specific, 'Why is it that when two adults participated in the "crime" was only one of them charged?'
Click to expand...

The only answer I can think of is that the assumption is that the one charged used their perceived authority to make it happen.

I think that assumption is way off base.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Obfuscation. You've whined incessantly about it. You can stick a feather in its hat and call it "Macaroni" all you like, Solitary.

You can't own your duplicity so you twist, turn, and dress it up good and proper then claim amusement. Fail.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Click to expand...

So my laughing at it is whining, and yet SM's obsession with it somehow justified?

Obviously, you "calls'em as you sees'em" only in defense of SM.
 
Threedee said:
BTW, I wasn't kidding about that stepmom analogy. If I wound up with a smokin' hot stepmom who is the trophy wife of my much older father, I would bang the hell out of her, and continue on even if/after they split up.
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
Obviously, because the workplace (including the DoD one) is legally the same thing as a family tree.

This worries me in one particular way: Say that you're a man in your mid-twenties, and your mother passes. Daddy goes and marries a super hot 22-year-old, DD babe who is absolutely perfect physically. When she gets back from a long day of shopping for expensive lingerie with his money, I would want to be able to legally fuck the piss out of her. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

These are two of the few posts that have mattered on this thread. You people should be discussing them, rather than what SM said to Sol, etc.

images


rupert_murdoch_with_wife_wendi.jpg
 
Damocles said:
The main difference was the personal nature of the post where you named a specific question about a poster and whom they acted sexually with. Stop trying to justify your post. The nature of this discussion is problematic, we allow it because it is news. However suggesting that any poster participates in any illegal activity with children will not be tolerated, nor will any explicit descriptions of such activity even in relation to others who are not members of the board.

Please pay particular attention to the last sentence of rule 12.

"Do not suggest encounters with another poster's child."

Now you can attempt to justify, or you can just stop that kind of rubbish. It's up to you. I know what we'll do.
Click to expand...

Hence the definition of the word "child":
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age
Click to expand...

m-w.com

Where nothing of the sort was inferred. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top