12/21/21 Tom's 9 hour sperg a thon - I'm not watching it

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Cite some you child molester. Cite some law that says that after you admit you molested a child, an act that was illegal at the time you did it and remains illegal, and someone calls you a child molester, based on your admission of child molestation, that it is somehow libel to say that you said the things where you admitted you molested a child, especially when your response to being accused of saying the things you said where you admitted you molested a child, you invariably go into yet another drugged-out ramble about Sabrina and how it was okay because she was nearly 15.

I'm sure it will be right next to the court ruling that says that the Golden State Killer wasn't really a murderer, because he killed people over 40 years ago
 
At least Polanski bathes, has money and all his original teeth. If I had to chose between who was going to molest me, I'd go with Polanski just by smell alone.
Yeah, at least Polanski would have expensive drinks, free quaaludes and probably doesn't smell like shit mixed with garbage.
 
I like the fact that Thomas believes that his space on a lolcow forum is the weathervane by which the right and wrong sides of history shall be judged. The ego of this man knows no bounds.
 
I hope josh bans Tommy just like he banned Melinda

that would be the last nail in the fat fetishistic fascist faggot fool's coffin.

Josh should ban Tom for a week. The laughs would be amazing as he chimps out like a lunatic over at AMB. His annual holiday chimpout is in full swing, why not poke the bear ever so slightly. Also as an added bonus, we won't have to sit through the "Christmas is the Tool of the White Man " article he will likely post in the next few days along with his retarded commentary......

I am also excited for the upcoming episode where Tom owes money to the feds for overpayment on his SSI. There is no way in hell he will report his inheritance to the SSA, and they will find out eventually. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some ween makes an anonymous report to the SSA OIG.....
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
you have no proof the minor was abused. all you have is conjecture. i live rent free in your reptilian brain, fool.
you have admitted it, over and over and over. That's fact, you know it. The evidence comes from your head, where it lives rent free, in shame. She was a minor, you abused her. Knowingly. Your only regret it not changing her name. But you'll dox anyone. Lawyer, reporter, abuse victim. Doesn't really matter does it? You have no shame, no humility, no conscience.
 
no you're not. you have no way to prove that I am a pedophile,
We have plenty of proof of that. Certainly enough to convince a judge. You might want to be careful - Oscar Wilde got away with being gay in a homophobic society until he sued the Marquis of Queensbury for calling him gay. That brought his proclivities to the attention of the law, where it was impossible to ignore them, and he was sent down for it. Think on.
serial child molester ,
I don’t recall people calling you a “serial child molester.” You are a child molester in the legal sense of the term, though, even if you want to redefine the terminology.
You’ve admitted to sexual interaction with dogs and sexual attraction to dogs. Any reasonable person would define you as a dogfucker.
swindle people with shit rock, etc, etc, ad nauseum
If people don’t like your product, that’s your problem, not theirs. You are free to demonstrate the quality of your products.
you have no proof the minor was abused. all you have is conjecture. i live rent free in your reptilian brain, fool.
You are very stupid and do not understand libel. In your own words, the minor was abused.

1. You knew she was below the age of consent.
2. You knowingly got into bed with her with the intention of sex.
3. You had sexual contact with her.
4. This sexual assault only stopped because you were prevented from going further by another woman.

You were stupid enough to record and publish all this information. It doesn’t matter if you don’t think it counts because you were stopped from going all the way, or she was mature for her age, or she’d been raped by other pedos since the age of 9, or you want to change the story. All that matters is the law.

I would advise you to just stop talking about this event altogether if you’re planning to make a lawsuit out of it.
that's probably more likely than any filing against this dump by me. there's a class action brewing i'm signing onto.
Explain the basis of this suit.
that would be the last nail in the fat fetishistic fascist faggot fool's coffin.
Yeah, that’s going to look great in court. “I want this website taken down! They won’t let me post there!” The judge will laugh his ass off, then sentence you to death for being so stupid.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Mr. "Public Figure" should really take his own advice and research the laws he imagines are on his side; See: Hustler vs. Falwell, NYT vs. Sullivan and the Doctrine of Substantial Truth.
Those are rather interesting. Being a Bonglander, I wasn’t aware of them. Well, Tom would certainly fall down on the substantial truth - he may not have actually had penetrative sex with dogs, but it is substantially true that he is a dogfucker.

Of course, we could ask the question, how do we define a “dogfucker?” Is it a literal claim, that he is a person who “fucks” (has penetrative sex with) dogs? Or is it more of a description of inclination, just as a paedophile is defined by their attraction to children rather than their actions?

These are the questions that keep me busy when e.g. I am waiting for the elevator.
 
Also, I have a suspicion the "bed bugs" are really a symptom of his very obvious Cannabis-induced psychosis.
While well within the realm of possibility, Tom's also disgusting enough that having bedbugs is something I could easily see him achieving. Consider that he's had fleas, roaches, and more or less all manner of parasite in his humble shithovels over the years.
 
It's Tom's containment board. Without this part of the site he'll shit up random other boards/threads.
Well, we must be fucked then, seeing there's no way to ban him or his machine.

Tom's presence anywhere declines the quality of the place, even kiwifarms. (I almost kept a straight face typing that.) He uses it as an excuse to grift for money and attention. Needs to die, it's already shriveling up.
 
Or is it more of a description of inclination, just as a paedophile is defined by their attraction to children rather than their actions?
First, stop spelling it wrong, limey tosser. 😉

Second, "pedophile" is one of many terms with a technical/clinical definition that's different from how it's used in everyday parlance.

As you stated, clinically it merely refers to a state of mind/desire/attraction exclusively or primarily to "prepubescent" minors, whereas in everyday conversation it's used synonymous - if not accurately - and interchangeably with terms such as "child molester", "child abuser", "sex offender", "sex criminal" or "person who has committed an unlawful sex at" et al.

Technically, an individual could be a pedophile, but not be a child molester/abuser et al because they haven't committed an unlawful act. Conversely, a child molester/abuser/person who has committed an unlawful sex act can commit an unlawful act involving a minor, without meeting the clinical definition of “pedophile”.

Further, “child molester”/”child molestation” is an umbrella term, used in US law and, generally, State laws ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to denote a single instance ["child abuse" refers to a pattern of acts] of any number of unlawful sexually-based engagements between an adult and a minor, some of which don’t even require physical contact – exposing a minor of a certain age to “pornographic” material, for instance.

Right around the time “SchlemazelBin Tooter, "direct descendant of [M]oses and [A]aron" and "mouthpiece for YHVH and SHECHINAH", started making a horse’s backside of himself over the alleged “Sabrina” [an entity whose existence I’m still not sold on] matter, I encountered a lolcowish sperg on another website who, like our hygienically-challenged friend in AZ, liked to rail against current age of consent laws and who imagined himself as the target of a huge conspiracy by various and sundry and who felt the website in question was a tool that existed so that bad actors could specifically screw with him.

We’ll call him “Burt”.

Burt never claimed to have engaged in illicit and unlawful sexual contact with a minor child, but he did engage in a several-years-long campaign of activities that were just shy of actionable harassment against a locally well-known professional woman [incidentally, this fruitcake was also living in AZ when all of what I’m describing went down] who’d rejected his advances, and also seemed to believe he was an advocate for “young girls” who were apparently being “programmed” by a certain group specifically to keep him from finding a life partner.

After relocating to Iowa, “Burt” ended up getting convicted in absentia for an incident where he chained a bank door shut and forced employees to contact the FBI for him – as he’d not had any success on his own getting them to go find all the mean internet people who’d taken issue with his online buffoonery and fallen into the black hole that was his personal unreality of a certain organization being wholly responsible for all his life’s ills.

He was tried in absentia because he’d somehow gotten out of psych-holds and fled to the great white north, where he apparently is still residing as a fugitive from justice with an active warrant issued by IA.

I mention this because among other creepy acts, he liked to advocate for a friend of his who’d been convicted of disseminated sexually explicit material to minors and forced to register as a sex offender. The guy owned a restaurant and, allegedly, had been watching porn on a TV viewable by diners and employees alike. Among other colorful arguments “Burt” liked to use to defend his buddy was that, and I’m paraphrasing, “the girls all had boyfriends, were likely sexually active, and had to have seen porn before”.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Wstecz
Top Na dole