Hey Zombie, if it means anything, I appreciate your posts much more than staints, all's he ever comes up with are smart-ass 2 line (if that) rejoinders....

Lurker wrote:

Hey Zombie, if it means anything, I appreciate your posts much more than staints, all's he ever comes up with are smart-ass 2 line (if that) rejoinders....

Shucks thanks, I try to entertain and/or shock. I won't post CP, but I don't think that everything involving a child is necessarily pr0n. Doesn't it have to be arousing to at least someone? I seriously doubt the sleeping kiddie was either the object of arousal for the photo-takers, or for their imagined audience. I expect they completely forgot about the presence of the kid. I bet they do it all the time. I mean, what can you do if you live in a single-room trailer?

Is this our first picture thread controversy? Yippeee! flame on, dooooods!

fuckin' A

and on a completely different subject...

newest redneck invention

Zombie Elvis wrote:

bwa-hahahahaha! her name is Dena Weiner

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/images/ … ntauri.jpg

I'd hit it

Emmeran wrote:

Zombie Elvis wrote:

, but I don't think that everything involving a child is necessarily pr0n. Doesn't it have to be arousing to at least someone? I seriously doubt the sleeping kiddie was either the object of arousal for the photo-takers, or for their imagined audience.!

I would normally agree with you, however since inception of High-Street we had links to articles documenting fellow citizens:

having public intercourse with traffic signs,
Cross-dressing and stopping highway traffic to model said attire,
shocking life-partners to death with nipple clamps stupidly attached to 20amp power strips,
and commentary by web site staff on how to increase our search engine traffic;

with that in mind and the knowledge "free speech" has never applied to images of pre-pubescents regardless of the intention, it would seem that discretion is definitely the better part of valour.

Especially when the Thought Police are watching.

Zombie Elvis wrote:

Especially when the Thought Police are watching.

Anyone here ever seen real child porn? I did, once, on a google chat board I surfed through. Let me tell you, it ain't pretty. Before I saw it, sure, I joked like everybody else about Big Brother et al, and the Thought Police invading our lives...but then boom, I'm face to face with a series of obviously amateur shots of a five or six year old girl with a guy's dick in her mouth. There were others, too, that i can't even describe because it makes me want to vomit. The looks of pain, and fear in these little kids eyes haunt me still.  Any sick fuck involved with that shit should personally blow his head off NOW.

That said, while I didn't see Dusty's pic, I'm sure it was prurient, possibly ironic, but not the photographic equivalent of the ass slime found among these traders in the dark arts. You'd be surprised how many of them scurry around when you flip on the lights in lesser Google chatrooms.

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Anyone here ever seen real child porn? I did, once, on a google chat board I surfed through. Let me tell you, it ain't pretty. Before I saw it, sure, I joked like everybody else about Big Brother et al, and the Thought Police invading our lives...but then boom, I'm face to face with a series of obviously amateur shots of a five or six year old girl with a guy's dick in her mouth. There were others, too, that i can't even describe because it makes me want to vomit. The looks of pain, and fear in these little kids eyes haunt me still.  Any sick fuck involved with that shit should personally blow his head off NOW.

That said, while I didn't see Dusty's pic, I'm sure it was prurient, possibly ironic, but not the photographic equivalent of the ass slime found among these traders in the dark arts. You'd be surprised how many of them scurry around when you flip on the lights in lesser Google chatrooms.

One of the crimes where you are definitely presumed guilty (except in Cali - where the liberal state legislature has tryed to increase the number of images you may possess without it being a felony)   **think: cached images=possession**

But no - I've never seen it and aren't at all curious.

Dmtdust wrote:

Wasn't mine, Sunshine.  I was the one who deleted it though.

Saved me the correction, thanks (btw nhf etc, I know you're living in a police state with self-appointed keepers of the order, etc etc etc)

I've described the picture quite clearly, and I've just seen it again in the place I found it. The kid is sleeping off in the background on a couch under a blanket. The place is a total mess. The shadows all look like they've come from the same flashbulb. The two protagonists are fatter, uglier and whiter than I remembered.

Ironically, the guy looks like he'd definitely be in a lynch mob chasing down an alleged pedo, swinging a baseball bat and screaming murderous abuse at the local mis-understood pediatric surgeon (don't laugh, that actually happened somewhere)

I dunno. If it's a setup "comedy" piece then yeah, it's probably sick for sure. The best assessment (for them) is that they stupidly think it's ok; "the kid's asleep". If that was true, I wonder at the stupidity of posting it in the face of all the shit going on in your country.

Zombie Elvis wrote:

I wonder at the stupidity of posting it in the face of all the shit going on in your country.

Rule of law is gone, apparently for good. We've ignored our own constitution at least since the 1913 imposition of a privately held federal backing system and federal income tax but now we have war without end and the screws are tightening. Our elections no longer mean fuck all.

testing
http://bayimg.com/fAjPdaAba

Emmeran wrote:

Welcome to:  Merkin World

http://www.merkinworld.com/images/heart_01.jpg
http://www.merkinworld.com/images/smiley_01.jpg
http://www.merkinworld.com/images/union_jack_01.jpg

ahh, smirkin' merkins....

the new neighbors seem a little uptight.