Rincewind Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 How many babies have emerged this year as Foxes fans? Post your photos of the little brats wearing a City outfit and let the Foxestalk members decide which is the best. If the entrants are low there could be catagories for different ages Only the very young though which unfortunately counts me out of the cutest 50+ group.
Geo V Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 A girl I was dating started to learn words like "Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuume" and "Fulop" but she was not quite a baby, not at 26 anyhow
Floating Fox Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 Extraordinary. I would say something, but I cant bring myself down to Damo's level.
davieG Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 I seem to remember this babe being well received.
Wherethefoxhat? Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 I seem to remember this babe being well received. Hard boiled eggs & nuts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David O'Leary Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 How many babies have emerged this year as Foxes fans? Post your photos of the little brats wearing a City outfit and let the Foxestalk members decide which is the best.If the entrants are low there could be catagories for different ages Only the very young though which unfortunately counts me out of the cutest 50+ group. please don't
Zingari Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 this little bundle of joy arrived a few days ago
Webbo Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 this little bundle of joy arrived a few days ago
Wezleylowski Posted 27 November 2007 Posted 27 November 2007 bad idea then? I think its a good idea, unfortunately I highly doubt that people will be willing to put pictures of there little 'uns on a messageboard. Partly down to the sick world we live in today.
David O'Leary Posted 28 November 2007 Posted 28 November 2007 bad idea then? Yes. I think its a good idea, unfortunately I highly doubt that people will be willing to put pictures of there little 'uns on a messageboard. Partly down to the sick world we live in today. Thats why.
Rincewind Posted 29 November 2007 Author Posted 29 November 2007 TBH I was thinking of the 'Aaaahhhh aint he/she/it cute' response, but I take your point. Personally I think the risk is minimal but if I had a young child I would probably think differently.
Daggers Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 Thats why. Why Just because there are child molesters in the world and just because they can access the internet does not mean that my children are going to be molested simply because their picture is on the internet. The logic is ****ed and has resulted in situations like parents not being allowed to photo or video their kids during Nativity plays. There is an Xmas catalogue in the supporters shop; odds are that at least one person that supports City is a child molester and yet I haven't heard that all the pages with the cute little baby get removed in case some sickhead knocks one out while looking at them. Incidence of child abuse by strangers, while deeply shocking and garnering much media attention, are incredibly rare. Despite this, knee-jerk politics seem to rule the roost - frequently advocating the banning of things resulting in the restriction of my liberties 'in case it encourages a crime'. Pathetic. So, as much as I thought this thread was a bollocks of an idea ~ here's a picture of my kids, posted simply because a load of you seem to think it's wrong.
James. Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 Here, have a hearty round of applause from me Daggers. Well said sir.
Daggers Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 ...shit, I forgot about the bestialists. Could a moderator put a black strip over Babbage's face? I'd hate the thought of his picture being desecrated.
Zingari Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 Why Just because there are child molesters in the world and just because they can access the internet does not mean that my children are going to be molested simply because their picture is on the internet. The logic is ****ed and has resulted in situations like parents not being allowed to photo or video their kids during Nativity plays. There is an Xmas catalogue in the supporters shop; odds are that at least one person that supports City is a child molester and yet I haven't heard that all the pages with the cute little baby get removed in case some sickhead knocks one out while looking at them. Incidence of child abuse by strangers, while deeply shocking and garnering much media attention, are incredibly rare. Despite this, knee-jerk politics seem to rule the roost - frequently advocating the banning of things resulting in the restriction of my liberties 'in case it encourages a crime'. Pathetic. So, as much as I thought this thread was a bollocks of an idea ~ here's a picture of my kids, posted simply because a load of you seem to think it's wrong. What are those kids doing to the dog his eyes are popping out
AoWW Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 Why Just because there are child molesters in the world and just because they can access the internet does not mean that my children are going to be molested simply because their picture is on the internet. The logic is ****ed and has resulted in situations like parents not being allowed to photo or video their kids during Nativity plays. There is an Xmas catalogue in the supporters shop; odds are that at least one person that supports City is a child molester and yet I haven't heard that all the pages with the cute little baby get removed in case some sickhead knocks one out while looking at them. Incidence of child abuse by strangers, while deeply shocking and garnering much media attention, are incredibly rare. Despite this, knee-jerk politics seem to rule the roost - frequently advocating the banning of things resulting in the restriction of my liberties 'in case it encourages a crime'. Pathetic. So, as much as I thought this thread was a bollocks of an idea ~ here's a picture of my kids, posted simply because a load of you seem to think it's wrong. spot on. ...shit, I forgot about the bestialists.Could a moderator put a black strip over Babbage's face? I'd hate the thought of his picture being desecrated. Babbage...
hairy Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 Heres my doggie, Ziggy. "Say hello to Daggers dog Ziggy" "Bollox!"
Wezleylowski Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 Why Just because there are child molesters in the world and just because they can access the internet does not mean that my children are going to be molested simply because their picture is on the internet. The logic is ****ed and has resulted in situations like parents not being allowed to photo or video their kids during Nativity plays. There is an Xmas catalogue in the supporters shop; odds are that at least one person that supports City is a child molester and yet I haven't heard that all the pages with the cute little baby get removed in case some sickhead knocks one out while looking at them. Incidence of child abuse by strangers, while deeply shocking and garnering much media attention, are incredibly rare. Despite this, knee-jerk politics seem to rule the roost - frequently advocating the banning of things resulting in the restriction of my liberties 'in case it encourages a crime'. Pathetic. So, as much as I thought this thread was a bollocks of an idea ~ here's a picture of my kids, posted simply because a load of you seem to think it's wrong. That your opinion, and I respect that, but if i had kids i wouldn't want to give any sick bastards any satisfaction over them. I would happily email freinds those pictures but not strangers. You have to be careful with people like our resident Russell Brand knocking about.
Daggers Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 That your opinion, and I respect that, but if i had kids i wouldn't want ... That my opinion indeed. If your idea of sexual molestation is fixed on someone flogging off to some semi-naked tart online then I don't think you ever have to fear about having children - just get yourself some more tissues for your issue.
Wezleylowski Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 That my opinion indeed.If your idea of sexual molestation is fixed on someone flogging off to some semi-naked tart online then I don't think you ever have to fear about having children - just get yourself some more tissues for your issue. Thats not my idea of sexual molestation, but the idea of someone "flogging off" to a picture of one of my kids woul;d drive me to the brink of despair. So I would never give those freaks the opportunity.
Daggers Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 Thats not my idea of sexual molestation, but the idea of someone "flogging off" to a picture of one of my kids woul;d drive me to the brink of despair. So I would never give those freaks the opportunity. I'm touching myself while reading your post.
Wezleylowski Posted 29 November 2007 Posted 29 November 2007 I'm touching myself while reading your post. Stop soiling my opinion
Rincewind Posted 29 November 2007 Author Posted 29 November 2007 There have always been and will always be molester s about in this world. The proportion per populace may have changed but it is there and it will not disappear. Just today a 76 year old man has appeared in court facing murder charge of a young girl 50 years ago. With wider and better media coverage these occurrances seem to happen more frequently. What should we do avoid any advert with a baby in? Ban baby competions? Not take them to the park? My reason for the thread was inspired by other threads with acrymons in them hence NAFF. The guiness and the wine ones for a start. I was not expecting a huge debate is sexual deviance. The only link with 'sick' are the buckets required after viewing a selection of smiling babies dressed up by their loving parents. No offence intended.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.