sex offenders lists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

What's with the name calling?

---

Oh, the ironing. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

Oh, the ironing. :lol:

---

Yup it's ironing alright when I've seen you get on your high horse about the same shit.

I've seen you do same crap with me while ignoring others. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I have a son, he turned one last month. Lovely little chap.

It's funny how you say that having children changed your perspective, does this mean that the birth changed you from a fucking liberal into your current state. Shame.

Anyway, I will protect my son in a variety of ways, one of them being him having no time alone with strangers. I think that's sensible. What I'll also be aware of tho' is that children who are abused normally get abused by people in positions of trust rather than someone who you just don't know. A first time offender. I am presuming that a convicted sex offender cannot ascend to a position of trust involving kids where you live too and that convicted paedophiles have special release circumstances which preclude them from being near children - this kinda negates Nikki's, well written but ultimately flawed, post.

We're both running the same risk here, I mean knowing that the guy at #34 is a sex offender and not letting him be alone with your child is a good thing but does it mean that you'll leave your child be alone with the guy at #33 who isn't on the list. Of course not and neither will I.

To safeguard 100% against paedophiles who've not yet been caught would entail locking the kid up under either your or your partner's supervision 24/7. I'm not going to do that but I will be extra vigilant when it comes to the time when either myself or a member of my immediate family cannot be by his side.

I would expect every parent to do the same.



A paedophile list would not make my child any safer because I take full responsibility for that task. I'm confident that I can do it with or without a public sex-offender list.

---

Many of us are extra vigilant (God knows I am).......a small few are vigilante.

I also have extra knowledge witht the list. It also keeps the offender on their toes. We are watching. :shifty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Yup it's ironing alright when I've seen you get on your high horse about the same shit.

I've seen you do same crap with me while ignoring others. :huh:

---

I think that's more to do with the immatureness of your name calling* and the repressed homosexual subtext that your insults contain.

Yeah, I call people names on occassion but I do try to only be responding in kind.





*Yes, I realise the irony there as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Calm down Brain. :P

I think the point that fkdup is trying to make is that it's not about whether someone will re-offend, it's that awareness is key. Whether the child molestor actually re-offends is irrelevant.

If a child molester moves into a neighbourhood, and the public does not know about it, the opportunity for them to re-offend is more likely. People who don't know that their neighbour is a child molestor will be less likely to take necessary precautions to prevent such opportunities with that person from arising.

If a child molestor moves into a neighbourhood and the public does know about it, there is likely to be less chance of opportunity arising. People will be more wary of that person, more protective and more aware of potential danger.

To clarify what I mean by opportunity, I'll give an example. When someone new moves into my neighbourhood, they're often invited to coffee or some such for introductions and the like. Backyard barbecues or parties happen over the summer and you invite your new neighbour over. There are children present, who may or may not have some sort of social interaction with this neighbour, be it tossing a ball around, saying hello, or just being introduced. This is opportunity, akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull. The situation would not present itself if the public were aware that the new neighbour was a previously convicted paedophile.

The point was made that most molestation cases occur among family members or friends. If we don't know that someone has committed a crime like this, are we not more likely to allow them into our circle of friends? Allow them to be near our family? That statement loses credibility when placed in that light does it not?

It's true that not everyone will re-offend. It's also true that some will. We can't know with any certainty who will, and who will not. Isn't it our responsibility to protect our children from even the slightest possibility?

I believe the welfare of our children far outweighs the possible risk of vigilante attacks.

To the point of ostracism/privacy/right to reassume a normal life, I don't believe that anyone capable of committing a crime such as this should be afforded those rights. The mere fact that they could do something so atrocious to the most defenceless of victims denies them that right in my eyes, from the moment they committed the crime, to the moment they die, regardless of whether the legal system deems them rehabilitated or not.

---

I am calm :blushing: and well said/posted Nikki, TYVM :)
I couldn't be arsed to go that deep into my opinion, had other things to worry about

Hesh, I was merely responding in the manner that you posted towards me
knock off the bullshit, I'll knock it off too, easy as that ;)

I care to know about who's been convicted of molestation,
because then I can take the precautions necessary to keep my kids away from these people,
or to instruct them how to react if/when confronted by such a person
(a swift kick in the balls comes to mind) :devil:

and before any of you jump on yer high horse....
NO I DO NOT WANT MY CHILDREN TO HAVE TO FACE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
I can see the possible reactions to this post...
"oh he's a rootin' tootin' gun totin' sun-of-a-gun that just wants his kid to go around kickin pepole in the nads, hyuck hyuck"
I dont even want to have to have a precautionary talk with them about it,
as I feel even the discussion is a theft of some of their innocence,
but child abuse/molestation is one of reality's sad faces

so what do you do? stay ignorant and make them a potential victim?
to hell with that, lessening the risk is a good way to start IMO

community service is another
I coach Little League, so I got kids up teh wazoo
on a slow week, we practice Mon-Wed-Fri, for about 2 1/2 - 3 hrs
the kids are in a safe place for that time
it's a pretty busy schedule for them, yeah, school til about 3 or so,
homework, then dealing with us degenerate coaches for a few hours :P
it leaves hardly any time for Nintendo or Playstation, I know :lol:
but it also leaves little time for them to be in potential harm's way
and when I say they are safe, believe it, at least while they're with me
I've kicked fuckers out of the park before, and I'll do it again,
if I feel they pose even the mildest threat to one of my kids ;)
the parents seem to support this, funny huh?
we got kids & parents itching to get on our team
not just because we teach em baseabll, or because we win,
but because the kids are my primary concern, as it should be,
and hopefully they come away from this season with more than a simple understanding of how to turn a double play
if I catch someone smokin dope at the park....gtfo
some stranger just hangin around lookin wierd....gtfo
is it a public park? yeah
but will I have that shit around children? nope
and if I see someone tryin to prey on one of those kids....
with drugs, sex, ANYTHING.....
I got half a dozen Louisville Sluggers in my equipment bag,
and I will try to dent every one of them over that fucker's head

I'm of the opinion that you have to take a stand as far as you're capable
even if that means meeting stupidity or malicious intent with violence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

What I'll also be aware of tho' is that children who are abused normally get abused by people in positions of trust rather than someone who you just don't know. A first time offender. I am presuming that a convicted sex offender cannot ascend to a position of trust involving kids where you live too and that convicted paedophiles have special release circumstances which preclude them from being near children - this kinda negates Nikki's, well written but ultimately flawed, post.

---

here is the flaw, not Nikki's post,
(which happens to be the opinion of a concerned mother).....

....some of these guys/gals get released back into the community
no, they willl never be able to hold a teaching job (thank God),
or even to volunteer in childrens' after school/extra curricular activities,
as nationwide checks are ran even to coach Little League baseball
but...
they end up moving back into the average neighborhood,
next to the average family with the avreage 2.4 kids
and a mom & dad who both work, with some teeny bopper nanny, who,
talks on the phone with her b/f rather than sit the kids

if mom & dad dont know about Joe Neighbor's history....
well....you fill in the blanks....but I think Nik already filled them in.....

as for the first time offenders, the people in positions of trust,
meh.....I'll get into that later...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

I am calm :blushing: and well said/posted Nikki, TYVM :)
I couldn't be arsed to go that deep into my opinion, had other things to worry about

Hesh, I was merely responding in the manner that you posted towards me
knock off the bullshit, I'll knock it off too, easy as that ;)

I care to know about who's been convicted of molestation,
because then I can take the precautions necessary to keep my kids away from these people,
or to instruct them how to react if/when confronted by such a person
(a swift kick in the balls comes to mind) :devil:

and before any of you jump on yer high horse....
NO I DO NOT WANT MY CHILDREN TO HAVE TO FACE SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES
I can see the possible reactions to this post...
"oh he's a rootin' tootin' gun totin' sun-of-a-gun that just wants his kid to go around kickin pepole in the nads, hyuck hyuck"
I dont even want to have to have a precautionary talk with them about it,
as I feel even the discussion is a theft of some of their innocence,
but child abuse/molestation is one of reality's sad faces

so what do you do? stay ignorant and make them a potential victim?
to hell with that, lessening the risk is a good way to start IMO

community service is another
I coach Little League, so I got kids up teh wazoo
on a slow week, we practice Mon-Wed-Fri, for about 2 1/2 - 3 hrs
the kids are in a safe place for that time
it's a pretty busy schedule for them, yeah, school til about 3 or so,
homework, then dealing with us degenerate coaches for a few hours :P
it leaves hardly any time for Nintendo or Playstation, I know :lol:
but it also leaves little time for them to be in potential harm's way
and when I say they are safe, believe it, at least while they're with me
I've kicked fuckers out of the park before, and I'll do it again,
if I feel they pose even the mildest threat to one of my kids ;)
the parents seem to support this, funny huh?
we got kids & parents itching to get on our team
not just because we teach em baseabll, or because we win,
but because the kids are my primary concern, as it should be,
and hopefully they come away from this season with more than a simple understanding of how to turn a double play
if I catch someone smokin dope at the park....gtfo
some stranger just hangin around lookin wierd....gtfo
is it a public park? yeah
but will I have that shit around children? nope
and if I see someone tryin to prey on one of those kids....
with drugs, sex, ANYTHING.....
I got half a dozen Louisville Sluggers in my equipment bag,
and I will try to dent every one of them over that fucker's head

I'm of the opinion that you have to take a stand as far as you're capable
even if that means meeting stupidity or malicious intent with violence

---

So you kick people out off the park. May I ask on whose authority do you do this? Would it not be better to use your mobile phone and call the poklice if someone is acting suspiciously. Instead of hunting them away to some other park or street where kids play.

If you act the way you say you act you are not setting a very good example to the kids that you are supposed to be teaching.

On a Saturday morning I used to walk across the parks, about 2 miles, to the shops. I am an old man 66. I used to stop halfway and watch the boys playing football(Soccer). I would watch for about half an hopur then carry on to the shops. I always considered that boys soccer was the best and most natural game before the 'trainers' got them.

About 8 years ago I stopped watching the soccer and now just walk on past. The reason? I was frightened of people like you. Not frightened of you in particular, I would have personally shoved your bats where they belong. But frightened of what I said earlier. Even wrong accusations stick.

Just in case you are wondering
Yes I am married and have children
I am an ex policeman and ex college lecturer.

P.S. May I add that I would be more worried about the my kids coach than any spectator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

here is the flaw, not Nikki's post,
(which happens to be the opinion of a concerned mother).....

....some of these guys/gals get released back into the community
no, they willl never be able to hold a teaching job (thank God),
or even to volunteer in childrens' after school/extra curricular activities,
as nationwide checks are ran even to coach Little League baseball
but...
they end up moving back into the average neighborhood,
next to the average family with the avreage 2.4 kids
and a mom & dad who both work, with some teeny bopper nanny, who,
talks on the phone with her b/f rather than sit the kids

if mom & dad dont know about Joe Neighbor's history....
well....you fill in the blanks....but I think Nik already filled them in.....

as for the first time offenders, the people in positions of trust,
meh.....I'll get into that later...

---

I can't help your judicial system but that isn't the case with ours, did you misunderstand the bit where I said that there are measures in place to preclude convicted pedophiles from contact with children. What I mean was that ... they're not allowed anywhere near kids else they'll end up back in prison :huh:

There are enough people in the know, as it were, who will report the slightest indescretion to the police. This doesn't preclude family barbeques nor baby-sitting, funnily enough.

As for kicking people out of public parks for looking a bit weird. Brian, you're just a bully. Odd looking folk have rights too. I'd probably pull my son out of that team in favour of one where the coach didn't teach intimidation as well as basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

So you kick people out off the park. May I ask on whose authority do you do this? Would it not be better to use your mobile phone and call the poklice if someone is acting suspiciously. Instead of hunting them away to some other park or street where kids play.

If you act the way you say you act you are not setting a very good example to the kids that you are supposed to be teaching.

On a Saturday morning I used to walk across the parks, about 2 miles, to the shops. I am an old man 66. I used to stop halfway and watch the boys playing football(Soccer). I would watch for about half an hopur then carry on to the shops. I always considered that boys soccer was the best and most natural game before the 'trainers' got them.

About 8 years ago I stopped watching the soccer and now just walk on past. The reason? I was frightened of people like you. Not frightened of you in particular, I would have personally shoved your bats where they belong. But frightened of what I said earlier. Even wrong accusations stick.

Just in case you are wondering
Yes I am married and have children
I am an ex policeman and ex college lecturer.

P.S. May I add that I would be more worried about the my kids coach than any spectator.

---

Well said, Boab.

You should carry on watching the soccer if that's what you like to do. I often stop in the park and do the same if I'm not playing, be it mens/boys soccer or rugby. Mostly watching the kids is better because of their enthusiasm and love of playing, half the blokes on my team are only in it for the after match drink (including me if it's muddy :unsure:).

I notice lots of elderly gentlemen watching, particularly if the weather is nice. Any thoughts of something more sinister has never entered my head - and won't do of most normal thinking folk. Personally I'd smile while saying 'Fuck off, twat' if anyone asked me to leave a public park but I do understand that mud sticks.

It's a shame :(

I have nothing more to add...apart from:

http://moderation.invisionzone.com/s...basketball.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

So you kick people out off the park. May I ask on whose authority do you do this? Would it not be better to use your mobile phone and call the poklice if someone is acting suspiciously.

---

who's authority? mine, and mine alone :)

if the "real" authorities are bothered by this...
well then, they can get off their asses and patrol the city like they are supposed to ;)

as I have posted before, and every post of mine regarding this matter seems to indicate,
I get pissed when thinking of people trying to harm kids,
and until a better way is proposed, I'll protect them my way
is it perfect? not by any means
is it wrong? show me a better way

you can discuss, debate, argue, whatever, but sometimes you have to actually do something
it's not always wrong to fight for your beliefs ;)
not alwyas right, or even the best way, but not always wrong either

city hall, the police dept., etc? they are not the current answer, sorry
they corrupt themselves with the power given them,
and see no further than the means by which they can gain more
we've had 2 or 3 mayors in a row kicked out for corruption,
and I see no change in the immediate, or even near, future
same with the chief of police
so are those the people we are supposed to turn to? shit :lol:

why does it always have to descend into long boring posts that don't go anywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fkdup

as I have posted before, and every post of mine regarding this matter seems to indicate,
I get pissed when thinking of people trying to harm kids,
and until a better way is proposed, I'll protect them my way
is it perfect? not by any means
is it wrong? show me a better way

---

i was just scanning through and saw some stuff about parks, then this.

so you kick people off parks because you don't like the look of them?

Just thought I would say that the concept of a paedophile "reforming" strikes me as preposterous. They may stop acting out on their urge to abuse children, but surely they would still have them (short of some sort of chemical / surgical way to remove them).

If we work on that basis, then they will always present a danger. No matter how well they control themselves the urge will still be there.

That's different from a thief, bully or whatever who can realize what they are doing is wrong and stop doing it. Even if the paedophile thinks their actions are wrong they will still have those urges.

I also agree with Nikki, having decided to commit such acts they have removed their right to privacy. Or at the very least seriously diminished it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i was just scanning through and saw some stuff about parks, then this.

so you kick people off parks because you don't like the look of them?

---

well I guess I should have counted on you of all poeple to blow it out of context :dry:
boab's post I saw merely as debate...you on the other hand....well.... :P

@boab - I only remove those that pose a problem, threat, etc.
spectators are part of baseball.....paedos, drug pushers, etc are not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

@boab - I only remove those that pose a problem, threat, etc.
spectators are part of baseball.....paedos, drug pushers, etc are not

---

The point is, who elected you judge, jury and executioner.

That, my friend is vigilantism. Perhaps only in a small way, just now, but that's what it is.

If the person is about to commit an act, then it is proper to act yourself. If however it is because you don't like the look of them, or assume what they are going to do something then you have no right to molest them.

If someone is acting suspiciously call the Police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

If someone is acting suspiciously call the Police.

---

read above regarding the integrity of our police force/city officials :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

I can't help your judicial system but that isn't the case with ours, did you misunderstand the bit where I said that there are measures in place to preclude convicted pedophiles from contact with children. What I mean was that ... they're not allowed anywhere near kids else they'll end up back in prison :huh:

---

Only if it's reported. If we don't know who we're reporting, then the guy in the park and letting the kids throw the ball for his dog, may just seem like a nice man who likes kids.

The sad fact is that they are not monitored 24/7. They are tracked only as far as jobs they may take, having to report in to counselling, and having to report in to the police/respective law enforcement agencies at specific times. As far as their social life, and free time, they are not tailed by police and they are not required to wear tracking devices (not here at least). The authorities cannot know where they are at all times.

Quote:

---

There are enough people in the know, as it were, who will report the slightest indescretion to the police. This doesn't preclude family barbeques nor baby-sitting, funnily enough.

---

If someone is sex offender, I don't want them at that barbeque or baby-sitting my child, even if they don't commit some indiscretion. I don't care if they will re-offend. I don't want them anywhere near my children, or my friend's children, or my neices and nephews, or my godsons. If I know that they are a paedophile, at least I can prevent this from happening with them.

I realize that there are those who have not been reported, who have never been to jail, and who will or have committed sexual offences. I also realize that there is no way for me to identify those people, and that there could be a risk in anyone my child comes into contact with. What I'm saying is that by knowing about those who are registered, at least that risk is reduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Just thought I would say that the concept of a paedophile "reforming" strikes me as preposterous. They may stop acting out on their urge to abuse children, but surely they would still have them (short of some sort of chemical / surgical way to remove them).

If we work on that basis, then they will always present a danger. No matter how well they control themselves the urge will still be there.

That's different from a thief, bully or whatever who can realize what they are doing is wrong and stop doing it. Even if the paedophile thinks their actions are wrong they will still have those urges.

I also agree with Nikki, having decided to commit such acts they have removed their right to privacy. Or at the very least seriously diminished it.

---

Yes, their rights will be severely diminished. Being tracked by authorities for the rest of their lives is fair, so is having to report for regular counciling sessions and being subject to interrogation about their lifestyles by trained police officers each month.

As to the reformation, of course they cannot stop feeling sexually attracted to children, one presumes. I say that because I get this urge to sexc0r most women I see, no amount of rehabilitation could get me to think differently. I don't act upon these urges tho', not only because missus manker would be most upset but because some of these women may object.

Since in our society it is inevitable that some paedophiles will get released from incarceration, would it not be better to instill a sense of self discipline into these folk, keeping stringent tabs upon while still affording them some freedom - ie. keeping them in the system - rather than risking sending them into hiding, because of some superfluous list, with like-minded people and so become a far greater risk to children.


Honestly, I don't know what's for the best regarding reformation. I would prefer very long prison sentences, tho' maybe not indefinite ones for some cases. What I do know is that a list will help no-one except criminals - it could even lead to a false sense of security in some areas where no convicted paedophiles were located. I can't see how I could take care of my son more than I already do. A list would make no difference my vigilance.

However, I'm a new dad. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

read above regarding the integrity of our police force/city officials :rolleyes:

---

I did.

So, that does not give you the right to molest people.

You are merely proving the point of those who oppose publishing lists on the basis of vigilante behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Only if it's reported. If we don't know who we're reporting, then the guy in the park and letting the kids throw the ball for his dog, may just seem like a nice man who likes kids.

The sad fact is that they are not monitored 24/7. They are tracked only as far as jobs they may take, having to report in to counselling, and having to report in to the police/respective law enforcement agencies at specific times. As far as their social life, and free time, they are not tailed by police and they are not required to wear tracking devices (not here at least). The authorities cannot know where they are at all times.



If someone is sex offender, I don't want them at that barbeque or baby-sitting my child, even if they don't commit some indiscretion. I don't care if they will re-offend. I don't want them anywhere near my children, or my friend's children, or my neices and nephews, or my godsons. If I know that they are a paedophile, at least I can prevent this from happening with them.

I realize that there are those who have not been reported, who have never been to jail, and who will or have committed sexual offences. I also realize that there is no way for me to identify those people, and that there could be a risk in anyone my child comes into contact with. What I'm saying is that by knowing about those who are registered, at least that risk is reduced.

---

Of course, I can see what you're saying. Tagging them is as excellent idea and happens over here, tho' not in all cases and not forever. I will say that it's not only the police who have access to the sex-offender's register, it's also teachers, youth workers, doctors, sports group organisers and other groups. I can see how you wish to personally have this control over some local paedophiles coming into contact with your children rather than entrust this soley to the authorities and the paedophile him/herself but my point is that the fact that everyone knows is also a bad thing.

I don't care that much if a paedophile gets beaten up. I do care if an innocent person gets dubbed a paedophile because they look a bit like someone on the list or have the same name or live in a certain house. I want these paedophiles to be in full view of the police rather than get driven into hiding precisely because of a list making everyone aware of them because that way they're less of a danger.

You say that seeing the list reduces the risk but I say it increases the risk because more of them will disappear from public view. This increases the number of local paedophiles who aren't being monitored in any way. A report I read yesterday stated that after Megan's Law was implemented that out of a group of 300, only 80 paedophiles still resided where they were supposed to be at.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there are other factors that maybe you've not considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

I think that's more to do with the immatureness of your name calling* and the repressed homosexual subtext that your insults contain.

Yeah, I call people names on occassion but I do try to only be responding in kind.





*Yes, I realise the irony there as well.

---

Wtf is mature name calling? I have no wish to be British "prim and propa" with name calling (I am a little more colorful than that) and in almost all cases it is in response to you and others bullshit name calling.

So if I tell you to suck dick I say it because by your posts you seem like a dick sucker, not because you say it has a homosexual subtext. :mellow:

Mmmk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

I have nothing more to add...apart from:

http://moderation.invisionzone.com/s...basketball.gif

---

Well I don't think soccer is. It's just boring until there is finally a goal scored.
(especially the PSV/Milan game).

I think it's great for a miniscule Sportscenter highlight. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

well I guess I should have counted on you of all poeple to blow it out of context :dry:
boab's post I saw merely as debate...you on the other hand....well.... :P

@boab - I only remove those that pose a problem, threat, etc.
spectators are part of baseball.....paedos, drug pushers, etc are not

---

[off-topic]it's kind of ironic. that if you do act like this, your children protect you from the unsavoury ones. because if you came on the park shouting at me for no reason, waving a rounders bat i'd kick the shit out of you, but not in front of your children.[/off-topic]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Yes, their rights will be severely diminished. Being tracked by authorities for the rest of their lives is fair, so is having to report for regular counciling sessions and being subject to interrogation about their lifestyles by trained police officers each month.

As to the reformation, of course they cannot stop feeling sexually attracted to children, one presumes. I say that because I get this urge to sexc0r most women I see, no amount of rehabilitation could get me to think differently. I don't act upon these urges tho', not only because missus manker would be most upset but because some of these women may object.

Since in our society it is inevitable that some paedophiles will get released from incarceration, would it not be better to instill a sense of self discipline into these folk, keeping stringent tabs upon while still affording them some freedom - ie. keeping them in the system - rather than risking sending them into hiding, because of some superfluous list, with like-minded people and so become a far greater risk to children.


Honestly, I don't know what's for the best regarding reformation. I would prefer very long prison sentences, tho' maybe not indefinite ones for some cases. What I do know is that a list will help no-one except criminals - it could even lead to a false sense of security in some areas where no convicted paedophiles were located. I can't see how I could take care of my son more than I already do. A list would make no difference my vigilance.

However, I'm a new dad. Perhaps I'm missing something.

---

It's one of these things where I cannot disagree with one thing you say. I understand your arguments and even agree with some, but I just come to a different conclusion.

For me, I just want as much information as possible and I feel that I have a right to know where these people are.

We can agree to disagree on the main yes / no issue.

Its nice to see some Moderation Harmony in debates. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Its nice to see some Moderation Harmony in debates. :rolleyes:

---

One can be civilized whilst disagreeing.

I'm sure you agree bawbag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

One can be civilized whilst disagreeing.

I'm sure you agree bawbag.

---

Bawbag? Haven't seen one in a while. :lol: I dont like mirrors. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Bawbag? Haven't seen one in a while. :lol: I dont like mirrors. :lol:

---

Sorry, I did a spellcheck and just let it automatically replace words.

The original was "I'm sure you agree bigboab"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

[off-topic]it's kind of ironic. that if you do act like this, your children protect you from the unsavoury ones. because if you came on the park shouting at me for no reason, waving a rounders bat i'd kick the shit out of you, but not in front of your children.[/off-topic]

---

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)

---

Wow. I hope you take this in the "if you can't handle a little criticism"* sort of way but...you sound like quite a disturbed and violent person.




*I quoted you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)

---

or even if we weren't?

seriously, i'd love to see you try this round here. you'd be out cold before you could get your gun because your rounders bat was laughed at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FKDUP74

trust me son, if you were fuckin with my kids, team or family,
you wouldn't get the chance ;)

---

I doubt though that you kick folks out of a park. Hell anyone can watch a game. When you said this you gave some here an opening for them to focus on when I think you just made an off (proofread by JP) remark.

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???

---

Office of Fair Trading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???

---

Out for tea. :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

What's an oft remark.

oft = ???

---

Thank you my spell checker. :blink:

I meant off

Then I agree, his remark was most certainly off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Then I agree, his remark was most certainly off.

---

Very much so.

I understand his concerns though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Very much so.

I understand his concerned though.

---

Do you mean that if you look weird then your a paedophiles. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enoughfakefiles

Do you mean that if you look weird then your a paedophiles. :blink:

---

if you're american you're paranoid and dangerous