Guest Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 But thats the thing some of you people know him. I dont and to an outsider looking in its very disturbing.He openly goes about saying this stuff, people come here browsing all these threads. This subject is not one to be joked with. Nonces need "special" protection in jail because they are so "ill" thought of. This bloke is just openly going about saying pretty bad stuff. Like i say we can all appreciate a good gary glitter joke n all that but saying certain things about ones self is surely a big no no. Im not gonna accuse him of being one but some of the comments are very worrying, like i say joke or no joke. A supply teacher even thinking these things???? not good. See my point at all? No. Not unless it is "we shouldn't be nasty to other posters, including ourselves, but it is ok to joke about a bloke who will never read what has been written about him".
dandannieldanok Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 Every time there is a bit of an argument you crawl out from under your rock with the old 'he's got 25k posts' routine. Well how else am I going to bump up my post count to 25k.
Bazaldo Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 No one said you didn't make a good point. THE REASON THIS THREAD HAS GONE CRAZY IS THE REACTION TO FOX123 CALLING SOMEONE A 'POTENTIAL PAEDOPHILE'.IT'S A STUPID THING TO SAY. NO ONE IS CONDONING PAEDOPHILIA. CAN I STOP SHOUTING NOW? Hasn't it been milked enough then?
James. Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 Hasn't it been milked enough then? Given that nearly 13% of your total post count is in this thread I'd say you're doing some serious milking too...
Alexikokopops Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 But thats the thing some of you people know him. I dont and to an outsider looking in its very disturbing.He openly goes about saying this stuff, people come here browsing all these threads. This subject is not one to be joked with. Nonces need "special" protection in jail because they are so "ill" thought of. This bloke is just openly going about saying pretty bad stuff. Like i say we can all appreciate a good gary glitter joke n all that but saying certain things about ones self is surely a big no no. Im not gonna accuse him of being one but some of the comments are very worrying, like i say joke or no joke. A supply teacher even thinking these things???? not good. See my point at all? Even if you don't know Daggers I think it was pretty clear from the context that it was purely to wind up poynton blue, and to actually sit there and think "OMG HE'S A PAEDOPHILE" is a knee-jerk, and ridiculous, assumption to make. It's like assuming I'm a maving rad gay gang rapist because I've made jokes about bumming Tabou/TPH/the majority of the male members of this forum, a point SosbanFach made earlier. Which is why I (and I imagine a lot of people in this thread) thought the whole "potentially paedophillic" is ridiculous and lead to seven pages of pissing around. My view (which I've said a couple of times already) is that if fox123 had started a thread on "I don't agree with Daggers making these graphic paedophile jokes purely to wind someone else up" then the response would have been different. I've said far too much on this, and made at least five serious posts today. That's my quota for the whole year gone.
Guest Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 I've said far too much on this, and made at least five serious posts today. That's my quota for the whole year gone.Nadler looks none too impressed.
Alexikokopops Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 No one said you didn't make a good point. THE REASON THIS THREAD HAS GONE CRAZY IS THE REACTION TO FOX123 CALLING SOMEONE A 'POTENTIAL PAEDOPHILE'.IT'S A STUPID THING TO SAY. NO ONE IS CONDONING PAEDOPHILIA. CAN I STOP SHOUTING NOW? I've tried to make that point about five times now! I don't like being serious! Nadler looks none too impressed. Nadler never looks impressed these days. I think he loves someone else
Bazaldo Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 No. Not unless it is "we shouldn't be nasty to other posters, including ourselves, but it is ok to joke about a bloke who will never read what has been written about him".
fox123 Posted 20 November 2008 Author Posted 20 November 2008 Did you even read my reply to you? This thread wouldn't have been so farcicle and you would've got more support if you hadn't claimed Daggers was "potentially paedophillic". You can pretend the thread's ended up like this because it's you against the world fighting for the underdog, but at the end of the day that's what it boils down to! I for one can guarentee my replies in this thread would've been exactly the same if anyone had tried to claim, in all seriousness, there was "potential paedophillia". You can complain all you like about the "same ol' clichéd drivel", but you only have yourself to blame for saying something so astoudingly ridiculous.Just in case you didn't see it here's that post again: I read your reply that's three times you have posted it now. I did actually mean to say that it could, to some people, come across in a potentially paedophillic way. Though I didn't feel the need to justify myself, not after just getting ridiculed for standing up for something that I believe in. If you need to pick at my post, fair point, at the time of posting that I was pretty angry from what I had just read from him and the fact the posts had been deleted before any one got the chance to see it. The be all and end all is, whether it was made in jest or not, I think to make sexual references like that is disgusting, and to someone who doesn't know him then its a worry to read such things. If my daughter was on this forum, I would be quite worried by such posts. I'm not a fan of porn either. I think it's degrading and demeaning to women and a mysoginistic exploitation of them as mere sexual objects, each to their own I guess.
Bazaldo Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 Can't keep up with you all, your all swooping in. I gather from this that you dont like a bit of objection. Yes i've read that he was JOKING. Bloke shouldn't joke about young daughters. End of. Hello again Lisa, hows the immigration??
The People's Hero Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 I'm not a fan of porn either. I think it's degrading and demeaning to women and a mysoginistic exploitation of them as mere sexual objects, each to their own I guess. Potentially, yes.
James. Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 I think everyone should f**k off and watch the Brass Eye special.
Bazaldo Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 I read your reply that's three times you have posted it now. I did actually mean to say that it could, to some people, come across in a potentially paedophillic way. Though I didn't feel the need to justify myself, not after just getting ridiculed for standing up for something that I believe in. If you need to pick at my post, fair point, at the time of posting that I was pretty angry from what I had just read from him and the fact the posts had been deleted before any one got the chance to see it. The be all and end all is, whether it was made in jest or not, I think to make sexual references like that is disgusting, and to someone who doesn't know him then its a worry to read such things. If my daughter was on this forum, I would be quite worried by such posts. I'm not a fan of porn either. I think it's degrading and demeaning to women and a mysoginistic exploitation of them as mere sexual objects, each to their own I guess. Take cover matey, here they come. Fair shout for sticking up in what you believe in. Not just a sheep.
The People's Hero Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 I think everyone should f**k off and watch the Brass Eye special. You smell suspiciously like hammers. Not just a sheep. Great, all this about not picking on people and now you're making light of Finners' sexual perversions.
fox123 Posted 20 November 2008 Author Posted 20 November 2008 Take cover matey, here they come. Fair shout for sticking up in what you believe in. Not just a sheep. It's expected
Bazaldo Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 Great, all this about not picking on people and now you're making light of Finners' sexual perversions. baaaahhh stereotyping?
The People's Hero Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 stereotyping? What's that? Typing with both hands? I do that all the time.
filbertway Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 As I said, taking the moral high ground over an (albeit sick) joke, yet ignoring the equally abhorrent issue of racism appears to condone it. Try reading what is written. It appears that he condones piracy as well, no posts complaining about people laughing about it.
Alexikokopops Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 I read your reply that's three times you have posted it now. I did actually mean to say that it could, to some people, come across in a potentially paedophillic way. Though I didn't feel the need to justify myself, not after just getting ridiculed for standing up for something that I believe in. If you need to pick at my post, fair point, at the time of posting that I was pretty angry from what I had just read from him and the fact the posts had been deleted before any one got the chance to see it. The be all and end all is, whether it was made in jest or not, I think to make sexual references like that is disgusting, and to someone who doesn't know him then its a worry to read such things. If my daughter was on this forum, I would be quite worried by such posts. I'm not a fan of porn either. I think it's degrading and demeaning to women and a mysoginistic exploitation of them as mere sexual objects, each to their own I guess. I guess my personal view is that it didn't come across in a potentially paedophillic way. Anyone who has seen my posts on here knows I very rarely take anything seriously. There's a time and a place for that and it's not the internet. That's just my view. I maintain my point that if you'd made the point in bold without the "potential paedophillia" quote then this thread would've been a whole lot different, and we would've had seven pages of debate (with some essays maybe thrown in by Thracian for good measure) Anyway, I've had enough seriousness for one day. Where's the chebs thread?
Asha Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 This is the same fox123 that cheated in the FXT Factor, creating two fake accounts along the way desperate for victory. Desperate. Says it all really.
poynton blue Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 I'm interested to know why certain posts of potential paedophilia by a so called respected member of the Foxestalk community has been deleted.I agree with Poynton Blue to the extent that, this certain poster ( a teacher) that posts this material made in sexual reference to minors needs taking a serious view of. To delete posts of such nature, clearly has the view that the posts will be taken in the context that I am posting about. Whilst you Daggers may make light of such situations, and get your kicks from posting such drivel and vile nonsense, I find this actually quite sickening. You don't seem to like people that challenge you, you block those that do yet your quick to pounce on the week, not so outspoken posters. You come home from a day at teaching and call your students c.unts, you use the word c.unt so loosely yet you find my post about winging women offensive. You are such a contradiction, you are a miserable sod (you started and maintained the What grinds my Gear Thread) I'm unsure of a day you haven't winged about something, made sexual references even to minors, your a disgrace. Some-one can insult my football team,race religion etc.... but when a 44 year old man in teaching says he wants to has/ had sex with my 9 yr old daughter what would most of you like to do?? rip his face off BAN THE TWAT DAGGERS NOW
fox123 Posted 20 November 2008 Author Posted 20 November 2008 I guess my personal view is that it didn't come across in a potentially paedophillic way. Anyone who has seen my posts on here knows I very rarely take anything seriously. There's a time and a place for that and it's not the internet. That's just my view. I maintain my point that if you'd made the point in bold without the "potential paedophillia" quote then this thread would've been a whole lot different, and we would've had seven pages of debate (with some essays maybe thrown in by Thracian for good measure) Anyway, I've had enough seriousness for one day. Where's the chebs thread? Fair point, though I still would have been, ridiculed, called a c**t, and somewhere in that post it would have been picked by the fickle. If anyone, would have posted what was posted about someone's daughter then it would have their name in the title, because it is a regular poster who people have met then its been picked up on. If what I had written was about someone new, someone no one had met then my post would not have been picked to pieces and majority of people would have skipped the bits instead of trying to make someone look a nob.
James. Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 Some-one can insult my football team,race religion etc....but when a 44 year old man in teaching says he wants to has/ had sex with my 9 yr old daughter what would most of you like to do?? rip his face off BAN THE TWAT DAGGERS NOW I don't think internet forums are the right place for you. Seriously.
poynton blue Posted 20 November 2008 Posted 20 November 2008 The post has been deleted but the twat daggers has said he wanted anal sex with my 9 yr old daughter BAN THE PEADO TWAT DAGGERS
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.